Adaptation and Valorization of Entrepreneurship in Irrigated Agriculture (AVENIR) Baseline Study Report Prepared by the International Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT) January 2021 ©Neil Palmer/CIAT Adaptation and Valorization of Entrepreneurship in Irrigated Agriculture (AVENIR) Baseline Study Table of Contents
List of figures...... 4
List of tables...... 8
Acronyms and abbreviations...... 9
Acknowledgements...... 10
Executive summary...... 11
1.0 Background and structure of the report...... 13
2.0 Methodology...... 15 2.1 Study design and sampling strategy...... 15
2.2 Data collection procedures...... 16
2.3 Models for estimating impact...... 17
2.4 Sample size determination...... 17
2.5 Socioeconomic, food security, and nutrition indicators...... 18
3.0 Household survey results...... 20 3.1 Target respondent characteristics...... 21
3.2 Access to basic services...... 27
4.0 Intermediate outcome 1100: The socioeconomic well-being and resilience of farming households...... 30 4.1 Household wealth and assets...... 30
4.2 Nutrition...... 32 4.2.1 Food Consumption Score...... 32
4.2.2 Food expenditure share...... 34
4.2.3 Household Dietary Diversity Score...... 37
4.2.4 Household Food Insecurity Access Scale...... 39
4.3 Socioeconomic empowerment...... 41 4.3.1 Sale of agricultural commodities...... 41
4.3.2 Additional income sources...... 43
4.3.3 Access to financial services...... 44
4.3.4 Digital financial services...... 46
4.3.4.1 Regular monetary savings...... 48
4.3.4.2 Access to credit services...... 50
2 Adaptation and Valorization of Entrepreneurship in Irrigated Agriculture (AVENIR) Baseline Study
4.3.5 Agro-processing...... 53
4.3.5.1 Constraints to market access...... 59
4.3.5.2 Financial record keeping and profit making...... 60
4.4 Household resilience...... 61
4.5 Household resilience clusters and cluster characteristics...... 62
5.0 Intermediate outcome 1200: Sustainable and innovative intensification of irrigated and climate change-adapted crops...... 65 5.1 Irrigated crops...... 65
5.2 Irrigation methods for various crops...... 69
5.3 Agricultural practices...... 71
5.4 Agricultural labor...... 74
5.5 Agricultural inputs...... 76
6.0 Intermediate outcome 1300. Improved, sustainable, and equitable local governance and territorial management of water resources...... 79 6.1 Social groups...... 79 6.1.1 Agricultural marketing and commercialization groups...... 79
6.1.2 Overview of water and irrigation groups...... 80
6.1.3 External support provided to water and irrigation groups...... 81
6.1.4 Water group conflicts...... 83
6.2 Climate shocks...... 84 6.2.1 Climate information services...... 86
6.2.2 Agricultural extension services...... 92
Conclusion: Findings and recommendations for project interventions...... 94
References...... 97
Annex...... 98 Study site maps...... 98
Supplemental tables...... 106
3 Adaptation and Valorization of Entrepreneurship in Irrigated Agriculture (AVENIR) Baseline Study LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 1 Administrative units of Senegal...... 15
FIGURE 2 Concentric land use zones in Sedhiou and Tambacounda Regions...... 15
FIGURE 3 Map of project sites showing the locations of sampled households in the baseline study...... 16
FIGURE 4a Number and percentage of households growing different tree varieties in Sedhiou and Tambacounda Regions...... 23
FIGURE 4b Number and percentage of households growing different tree varieties in Sedhiou and Tambacounda Regions...... 23
FIGURE 5a Number and percentage of households growing different crop varieties in Sedhiou and Tambacounda regions...... 24
FIGURE 5b Number and percentage of households growing different crop varieties in Sedhiou and Tambacounda regions...... 24
FIGURE 6a Average income from the sale of tree products...... 25
FIGURE 6b Average income from the sale of tree products...... 26
FIGURE 7a Average income from the sale of crop products over a 12-month period...... 26
FIGURE 7b Average income from the sale of crop products over a 12-month period...... 27
FIGURE 8 Health services access by household in Sedhiou and Tambacounda Regions...... 29
FIGURE 9 Percentage of households whose members personally know an elected official...... 29
FIGURE 10 Comparison of household wealth quintile by department...... 31
FIGURE 11 Comparison of wealth quintile by treatment and control groups...... 31
FIGURE 12 Food Consumption Score categories for the study households...... 32
FIGURE 13 Food Consumption Score categories for treatment and control groups...... 33
FIGURE 14 Food Consumption Score categories by study department...... 33
FIGURE 15 Food Consumption Score categories by wealth index quintile...... 34
FIGURE 16 Food expenditure share for all study households...... 35
FIGURE 17 Overall food expenditure for treatment and control groups...... 35
FIGURE 18 Food expenditure share categories by study department...... 36
FIGURE 19 Overall household food expenditure share by wealth quintile...... 36
FIGURE 20 Household Dietary Diversity Score for treatment and control households...... 37
FIGURE 21 Household Dietary Diversity Score by department...... 38
FIGURE 22 Household Dietary Diversity Score by wealth index quintile...... 38
4 Adaptation and Valorization of Entrepreneurship in Irrigated Agriculture (AVENIR) Baseline Study
FIGURE 23 Food insecurity access scale of treatment and control groups...... 39
FIGURE 24 Household Food Insecurity Access Scale by study departments...... 40
FIGURE 25 Household Food Insecurity Access Scale values by wealth quintile...... 40
FIGURE 26 Average annual agricultural income of treatment and control groups...... 41
FIGURE 27 Average annual agricultural income by department...... 42
FIGURE 28 Annual agricultural income by wealth quintile...... 42
FIGURE 29 Income sources for households in Sedhiou and Tambacounda Regions...... 43
FIGURE 30 Income sources by wealth quintile...... 43
FIGURE 31 Income sources for treatment and control groups...... 44
FIGURE 32 Ownership of a bank account...... 44
FIGURE 33 Ownership of a bank account by department...... 45
FIGURE 34 Ownership of a bank account in assigned treatment and control groups...... 45
FIGURE 35 Ownership of a bank account by wealth quintile...... 46
FIGURE 36 Use of mobile phones for financial transactions...... 46
FIGURE 37 Use of mobile phones for financial transactions by department...... 47
FIGURE 38 Use of mobile phones for financial transactions in the treatment and control groups...... 47
FIGURE 39 Use of a mobile phone for financial transactions by wealth quintile...... 48
FIGURE 40 Household members who save regularly...... 48
FIGURE 41 Household members who save cash regularly by department...... 49
FIGURE 42 Household members who save cash regularly in treatment and control groups...... 49
FIGURE 43 Household members who save cash regularly by wealth quintile...... 50
FIGURE 44 Access to credit...... 50
FIGURE 45 Credit services by department...... 51
FIGURE 46 Credit services in assigned treatment and control areas...... 51
FIGURE 47 Credit services by wealth quintile...... 52
FIGURE 48 Alluvial plot showing household savings and mobile phone use for financial transactions...... 52
FIGURE 49 Study households involved in the agro-processing of various crops...... 53
5 Adaptation and Valorization of Entrepreneurship in Irrigated Agriculture (AVENIR) Baseline Study
FIGURE 50 Number of households involved in agro-processing of various crops by department...... 54
FIGURE 51 Number of households involved in agro-processing in treatment and control groups...... 54
FIGURE 52 Number of households involved in agro-processing by wealth quintile...... 55
FIGURE 53 Average number of agro-processed crops in treatment and control areas...... 55
FIGURE 54 Average number of agro-processed crops by department...... 56
FIGURE 55 Average number of agro-processed crops by wealth quintile...... 56
FIGURE 56 Households involved in agro-processing that are aware of better markets elsewhere...... 57
FIGURE 57 Number of agro-processing households that are aware of better markets elsewhere by department...... 58
FIGURE 58 Number of households that are aware of better markets by assigned treatment and control groups...... 58
FIGURE 59 Agro-processing households aware of better markets by wealth quintile...... 59
FIGURE 60 Constraints to market access among agro-processing households...... 59
FIGURE 61 Constraints to market access for different agro-processed crops...... 60
FIGURE 62 Financial record keeping among households...... 60
FIGURE 63 Awareness of profits or losses from the sale of agro-processed products...... 61
FIGURE 64 Distribution of household resilience clusters, method 1...... 62
FIGURE 65 Distribution of household resilience clusters, method 2...... 63
FIGURE 66 Households that irrigate various crops...... 65
FIGURE 67 Households that irrigate various crops by department...... 66
FIGURE 68 Households that irrigate various crops in treatment and control areas...... 66
FIGURE 69 Households that irrigate various crops by wealth quintile...... 67
FIGURE 70 Number of irrigated crops in treatment and control areas...... 67
FIGURE 71 Number of irrigated crops by department...... 68
FIGURE 72 Number of irrigated crops by wealth index quintile...... 69
FIGURE 73 Irrigation methods for 0) all crops combined, 1) rice, 2) bissap, 3) onions, 4) chilis, and 5) gumbo...... 70
FIGURE 74 Common sources of water for irrigation...... 71
FIGURE 75 Common agricultural practices...... 72
FIGURE 76 Number of agricultural practices in treatment and control areas...... 72
FIGURE 77 Number of agricultural practices by department...... 73
6 Adaptation and Valorization of Entrepreneurship in Irrigated Agriculture (AVENIR) Baseline Study
FIGURE 78 Number of agricultural practices by wealth quintile...... 73
FIGURE 79 Classification of agricultural practices...... 74
FIGURE 80 Fertilizer types applied to different crop varieties...... 76
FIGURE 81 Sources of fertilizers...... 77
FIGURE 82 Perceptions of water group influence in the community...... 81
FIGURE 83 External support providers (left), disaggregated by water user groups and irrigation water use associations (right)...... 82
FIGURE 84 Major support types received by water and irrigation groups (left), disaggregated by water user groups and irrigation water use associations (right)...... 82
FIGURE 85 Parties involved in water and irrigation group conflicts...... 83
FIGURE 86 Institutions and people involved in conflict resolution in water and irrigation groups...... 83
FIGURE 87 Households impacted by climate shocks in the last 10 years...... 84
FIGURE 88 Households impacted by climate shocks in different departments...... 84
FIGURE 89 Types of climate shocks reported in the last 10 years...... 85
FIGURE 90 Household responses to climate shocks...... 85
FIGURE 91 Percentage of households reporting losses of income and assets due to climate shocks...... 86
FIGURE 92 Sources of climate information...... 86
FIGURE 93 Sources of climate information...... 87
FIGURE 94 Sources of climate information...... 87
FIGURE 95 Households trained in the use of climate information by department...... 88
FIGURE 96 Changes in rainfall patterns in the past 10 years...... 88
FIGURE 97 Changes in rainfall patterns in the past 10 years in terms of annual precipitation...89
FIGURE 98 Changes in annual average rainfall in the past 10 years...... 90
FIGURE 99 Changes in temperature in the past 10 years...... 90
FIGURE 100 Changes in annual temperature from 2009-2018...... 91
FIGURE 101 Changes in annual average temperatures from 2011-2018...... 92
FIGURE 102 Providers of agricultural extension services...... 93
FIGURE 103 Sources of extension advice...... 93
FIGURE 104 Types of extension service received...... 93
7 Adaptation and Valorization of Entrepreneurship in Irrigated Agriculture (AVENIR) Baseline Study LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 1 Sample sizes of the treatment and control groups across departments...... 18
TABLE 2 Description of variables...... 18
TABLE 3 Demographic and farm characteristics of the survey households...... 20
TABLE 4 Demographic characteristics of the baseline survey respondents...... 21
TABLE 5 Access to basic services...... 27
TABLE 6 Common road types to access villages in the study regions...... 28
TABLE 7 Classification of assets used to compute wealth index...... 30
TABLE 8 Number of agro-processing activities for crops...... 57
TABLE 9 Characteristics of the household resilience clusters...... 63
TABLE 10 Classification of agricultural practices...... 74
TABLE 11 Labor summary...... 75
TABLE 12 Labor summary by department...... 75
TABLE 13 Labor summary by wealth quintile...... 76
TABLE 14 Hiring labor...... 76
TABLE 15 Cost of labor...... 76
TABLE 16 Sources of seed for different tree varieties...... 77
TABLE 17 Sources of seed for different crop varieties...... 78
TABLE 18 Social group engagement...... 79
TABLE 19 Social groups involving households in different wealth quintiles...... 80
TABLE 20 Group position in water groups...... 80
TABLE 21 Input in decision making in water groups...... 81
8 Adaptation and Valorization of Entrepreneurship in Irrigated Agriculture (AVENIR) Baseline Study Acronyms and abbreviations
AVENIR Adaptation and Valorization of Entrepreneurship in Irrigated Agriculture
CFAF Communauté Financière Africaine (African Financial Community) franc
CIAT International Center for Tropical Agriculture
FCS Food Consumption Score
FES Food Expenditure Share
HDDS Household Dietary Diversity Score
HFIAS Household Food Insecurity Access Scale
ISRA Institut Sénégalais de Recherches Agricoles
IWUA Irrigation water association
Max Maximum
MEDA Mennonite Economic Development Associates
Min Minimum
N Total sample size
NGO Non-governmental organization ns Not significant
OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
SACCO Savings and Credit Cooperative Organization
VSLA Village Savings and Loan Association
WFP World Food Programme
9 Adaptation and Valorization of Entrepreneurship in Irrigated Agriculture (AVENIR) Baseline Study Acknowledgements
The Adaptation and Valorization of Entrepreneurship in Irrigated Agriculture (AVENIR) Baseline Study was conducted by the Alliance for Bioversity International and the International Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT) in collaboration with Institut Sénégalais de Recherches Agricoles (ISRA) with funding from Global Affairs Canada and facilitated by the Mennonite Economic Development Associates (MEDA).
This report was developed by a core team under the leadership, coordination, and supervision of Dr. Caroline Mwongera (CIAT) and the task leadership of Cyrus Muriithi. Additional contributors are Dr Christine Chege, Fridah Nyakundi, Dr. Wuletawu Abera, and Wilson Nguru. Dr. Djiby Dia led the task team at ISRA with support from Dr. Cheickh Sadibou Fall.
We acknowledge the invaluable collaboration of the following national partners at ISRA for their support and contributions to this study: Barry Mamadou, Moustapha Kasse, Pape Bilal, Talla Fall, and Thierno Souleymane Sylla. We also appreciate support in the design and implementation of the baseline survey from Millie Gadbois, Mira Chouinard, Carl Asuncion (MEDA), and Stephanie Jaquet (CIAT).
The report further draws on household interviews with farmers in the Sedhiou and Tambacounda Regions and on discussions with local leaders, whose contributions are gratefully acknowledged. We further wish to thank the dedicated enumerators who participated in our data collection process.
Citation: Muriithi, C., Mwongera, C., Abera, W., Nyakundi, F., Chege, C., & Nguru W. (2021). Adaptation and Valorization of Entrepreneurship in Irrigated Agriculture (AVENIR) Baseline Study. Nairobi, Kenya, 113 P.
10 Adaptation and Valorization of Entrepreneurship in Irrigated Agriculture (AVENIR) Baseline Study
Executive Summary
The objective of this baseline study was to evaluate conditions in the Sedhiou and Tambacounda Regions of Senegal for the AVENIR project. The study entailed observation of key trends, a household survey, and analysis of the biophysical characteristics of the project area and challenges for agriculture. Thereby, the study identified key lessons learned and documented challenges for agriculture development.
1. Agriculture remains the backbone for the socioeconomic empowerment of women and young people in Senegal but faces multiple challenges. Agriculture is an important source of income, employing 89% of respondents. Less than 2% of respondents from the surveyed households are unemployed, and only about 0.3% are in salaried employment. Out of all 1,503 sampled households, 92% are in the low-wealth quintile, 6% are in middle wealth quintile, and only 2% are in the high-wealth quintile. On average, women are hired to provide labor for fewer days than men, and women receive lower average wages.
2. Few farmers, however, have not managed to mobilize their agricultural sector to deliver on development outcomes such as food and nutrition security, poverty reduction, economic growth, job creation, and employment for women and young people. Most households produce crops primarily for home consumption, with limited sales of tree products. Dietary quality is still poor; indeed, 93% of households have poor food consumption. Several pathways may be feasible to improve nutrition in target communities: for example, increasing production of various nutritious commodities so that consumption of own-farm production is diversified; utilizing market pathways by using income from the sale of commodities to purchase more nutritious commodities or products for home consumption; and empowering women. Literacy rates are low, and 80% of households have no formal education. Access to good roads is limited; there is a prevalence of gravel roads and footpaths. Access to health services, financial services, and agricultural extension is also suboptimal. Approximately 88% of households have no bank account, and only 6% of households received extension in the last 12 months. About 58% of households are involved in irrigation of different crops. Less than 35% of surveyed households save money regularly, and close to 60% indicated that they did not take out any form of credit in the last 12 months.
3. Agriculture is vulnerable to climate change due to sensitivity and exposure to climate shocks and a lack of capacity to cope with and adapt to such changes. Major climatic shocks include households, which affected 20% of households; strong winds, which impacted 13% of households; and droughts, with consequences for 12% of households. About 4% of households reported that insects invaded and damaged crops. Approximately 19% did not take any action to respond to such climate shocks. To cope with climate shocks, 14% reported selling livestock, 10% used savings, and a number of households also borrowed from relatives. Around 30% of households received climate-related information mainly through the radio and their mobile phones. Most households (77%), however, have not received training in how to utilize climate information services for agricultural production.
4. Access to services is often limited. Sources of extension information are located on average 34.5 kilometers away from households, and they can be as far as 250 kilometers away. Input markets for agroforestry tree seed are closest to homesteads, an average of 50 walking minutes away. Access to tree products at output markets is limited, and target households need to travel longer distances to obtain this service. Access to sources of water for domestic use takes on average eight walking minutes and a maximum of 70 minutes. About 32% of households have a borehole or are supplied with piped water. The nearest hospitals and health clinics are on average 54 walking minutes away. Most households do not maintain any financial records. 11 Adaptation and Valorization of Entrepreneurship in Irrigated Agriculture (AVENIR) Baseline Study
5. Households are mainly involved in agricultural producer groups (23%), religious groups (9.6%), and savings and credit groups (6.7%). About 3.3% of households are involved in agricultural marketing and commercialization groups, 1.5% are in water users groups, and 0.5% are members of irrigation water associations. That so few households are involved in irrigation groups indicates that women’s involvement in both household and agricultural water use management is very low. The majority of household members, notably women, do not play a leadership role in these groups.
6. Agro-processing of crops is limited. Only 17% of the households are involved in producing or processing rice, gumbo, chilis, onions, and bissap. In general, the higher the wealth index, the lower the number of agro-processing households for various crops. Bissap is the most processed product among households in the low wealth index, followed by chilis and gumbo.
7. Access to markets. The main constraints reported by households that hinder access to better markets are transportation costs, which impact 36% of households; distance to the markets, which affects 32% of households; and low household production volumes for 27%. Some chili, onion, and bissap agro- processing households reported that middlemen, inadequate market information, and taxation policies also impede access to better markets.
8. Water and labor-saving irrigation technologies are uncommon. One widespread irrigation method involves pouring water by hand using a container, practiced by 37% of households, followed by bucket irrigation at 27%, sprinkler irrigation at 8%, and irrigation canals utilized by 6% of households. Gravity-fed irrigation through river diversion is among the least-applied methods practiced by just 3% of irrigating households. In general, water-saving technologies like drip and pump irrigation are uncommon. The most-used source of water for irrigation is traditional wells, followed by rivers and boreholes.
9. Adoption of climate-smart agricultural technologies is low. Generally, households have adopted 1 to 2 practices. These practices primarily include carbon- and nutrient-smart technologies such as agroforestry, intercropping, crop rotation, and the use of organic and inorganic manure.
This baseline study offers lessons and opportunities for supporting the socioeconomic empowerment of women and young people, scaling climate-smart agricultural technologies and practices, and managing water resources sustainably. These lessons include the following:
i. Half of the households surveyed indicated that they use mobile phones for financial transactions. ii. Radio programs and the internet are major sources of climate information. iii. Households use family labor for agriculture production; over 88% of households do not hire additional labor. iv. Social groups such as multi-stakeholder platforms have a strong influence in communities, and they offer the potential for knowledge sharing about innovations that foster adaptation to climate change, providing a good entry point for the dissemination of technology in target areas. v. A majority (62%) of households are in the low food expenditure share, indicating low food security.
12 Adaptation and Valorization of Entrepreneurship in Irrigated Agriculture (AVENIR) Baseline Study
1.0 Background and structure of the report
The Adaptation and Valorization of Entrepreneurship in Irrigated Agriculture (AVENIR) project aims to improve the socioeconomic well-being and resilience of farming households in the regions of Sedhiou and Tambacounda, Senegal. The project focuses on smallholder irrigated systems through promotion of climate-adapted irrigation and agricultural practices, particularly for women and young people. The project aims to directly benefit 10,000 farming households whose members include 70% women and young people, and indirectly benefit up to 35,000 individuals.
In collaboration with the Institut Sénégalais de Recherches Agricoles (ISRA), the International Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT) conducted a baseline survey in Sedhiou and Tambacounda Regions from October to December 2020. The goal of the survey was to gather key socioeconomic information on project sites and beneficiaries prior to the implementation of its interventions. Conducting the survey before field activities commence presents a picture of baseline conditions in the study sites. The baseline survey will therefore serve as a reference point for the impact assessment to evaluate how well the project achieves its objectives. These objectives include the following:
1. Increasing the profitability of agribusinesses in climate-adapted value chains including rice, horticulture, and agroforestry, while sustainably intensifying production; 2. Improving access to inputs, climate-adapted technologies, and efficient and affordable irrigation techniques; and 3. Fostering multi-stakeholder platforms and innovative dialogues for sustainable and equitable management of water resources.
The AVENIR project will support greater integration of women and young people from farming households for increased productivity within selected climate-change adapted value chains with strong market potential. Its interventions will enhance access to improved inputs, to critical agricultural services and skills development, and to markets. It will also support effective use of irrigation systems, engagement in value- addition and transformation, and greater participation in local water resource management structures and local governance through leadership development, capacity building, and facilitated involvement.
The AVENIR project uses the results-based management monitoring and evaluation approach to ensure project activities are in line with expected results and performance measurement indicators. This baseline study evaluates key indicators from the project’s Performance Management Framework, which is the primary tool to track the progress of implementation and the achievement of results and as such, monitors the project’s actual performance against intended results.
This baseline study is organized according to the project’s intermediate outcomes as follows:
1. Outcome 1100: Socioeconomic empowerment of women and young people; 2. Outcome 1200: Sustainable and innovative intensification of irrigated and climate change-adapted crops; and 3. Outcome 1300: Improved, sustainable, and equitable local governance and territorial management of water resources.
13 Adaptation and Valorization of Entrepreneurship in Irrigated Agriculture (AVENIR) Baseline Study
The main modules evaluated during baseline survey are as follows:
i. Household characteristics, including information about composition, such as household headship, the number of members, and their age, marital status, education level, religion, occupation, and formal and informal employment. ii. Household asset ownership, including housing, land assets, livestock, and farm and domestic assets. iii. Land access, ownership, and utilization characteristics, including access to land, plot ownership and characteristics, land tenure, plot decision making, soil management, and labor and fertilizer use. iv. Household financial and economic indicators, including access to financial services and credit facilities, remittances, and external income sources. v. Climate variability and shocks, climate change perception and impacts, adaptation interventions, and climate information services. vi. Social networks, including the membership, roles, and decision-making in a group. vii. Household food security and nutrition indicators, including food consumption, food and nonfood expenditures, household food supply and seasonality, child and maternal dietary diversity, and water access and sanitation. viii. Access to different services, including media, clinical services, and agricultural extension services.
This baseline report highlights the major constraints in the AVENIR project sites for socioeconomic empowerment, climate resilience building, and sustainable development. It offers key recommendations to implementers and decision makers on potential climate-smart agriculture upscaling and greater integration of women and young people for increased productivity and agribusiness profitability. This report also presents an executive summary that highlights the key challenges and science-policy linkages that are needed to ensure that AVENIR attains the desired results. It then elaborates on the background context and methodology that was used with a quasi-experimental impact evaluation design. This is followed by the baseline survey findings including key trends observed, associated socioeconomic and biophysical characteristics of the project area, and challenges for agriculture. This baseline report then provides insights into gender dynamics and administrative differences among different departments. Finally, it also furnishes conclusions and recommendations for the target sites that are also regionally relevant.
14 Adaptation and Valorization of Entrepreneurship in Irrigated Agriculture (AVENIR) Baseline Study 2.0 Methodology
2.1 Study design and sampling strategy Senegal has four levels of administrative units: regions, departments, communes, and arrondissements. Each region comprises departments that are sub-divided into rural or urban communes. These communes are made up of arrondissements, which are a composition of villages (Figure 1). In each region, several main departments were involved in the baseline study (Table 1). The project targets rural arrondissements that are further divided into villages (communautés rurales, each of which is made up of several households (Figure 1). Each household in the community is assigned a piece of farming land for cereals and other uses in zone 1 (Figure 2). In the outer layer (zone 2), each household includes a bigger portion of land for farming cash crops. The household can lease or purchase extra land for farming within or outside the village.
SENEGAL
SEDHIOU REGION TAMBACOUNDA REGION Regions
BOUNKILING GOUDOMP SEDHIOU BAKEL KOUMPENTOUM GOUDIRY TAMBACOUNDA Departments
Rural/Urban Communes
Arrondissement
Treatment and Control Villages
Households FIGURE 1 Administrative units of Senegal
Zone 2
Zone 1
Village with households
FIGURE 2 Concentric land use zones in Sedhiou and Tambacounda Regions
15 Adaptation and Valorization of Entrepreneurship in Irrigated Agriculture (AVENIR) Baseline Study SENEGAL TAMBACOUNDA N
SEDHIOU
LEGEND Sampled households Control department Treatment department Department boundary Regional boundary
FIGURE 3 Map of project sites showing the locations of sampled households in the baseline study
The baseline survey was conducted in Sedhiou and Tambacounda Regions, which are the target sites for the AVENIR project (Figure 3). Created in 2008, Sedhiou is a newly formed region in Senegal. It has an area of 7,341 square kilometers. According to the 2013 census, the population was 452,994. Tambacounda, on the other hand, is one of the largest and oldest regions in Senegal. It was formed in 1960 and is 42,364 square kilometers in size, with 681,310 inhabitants according to the 2013 census.
2.2 Data collection procedures For the baseline survey, we defined a household as a person or group of persons who live together in the same house or compound, share the same housekeeping arrangements, and are catered for as one unit, meaning that they make common provision for food and regularly take their food from the same pot (UN Census, 2015). The household head (chef de menage) is regarded as the overall decision maker on land use.
The target respondents for the survey, meanwhile, were women and young people involved in farming activities. However, during the administration of the survey, we also obtained information from the household head especially about land, agricultural production activities, and incomes. Our process to identify target respondents included the following steps:
16 Adaptation and Valorization of Entrepreneurship in Irrigated Agriculture (AVENIR) Baseline Study
1. When the research team visited the sampled villages, they contacted the village head to obtain a complete list of farming households, their age, and their gender distribution. 2. To match the project beneficiary eligibility criteria, the target respondent was either a female or young person from 18-35 years of age. 3. If a producer household had more than one eligible respondent, that is, multiple women and young farmers, the research team randomly selected one to be the survey respondent (referred as the “household target person”).
2.3 Models for estimating impact The impacts of the AVENIR project are evaluated based on a quasi-experimental approach. The appropriateness of this approach hinges on the purposive selection of the target locations of beneficiaries (treatment) and non-beneficiaries (control), guided by the project interventions.
In Sedhiou Region, Boukiling and Goudomp were selected as the treatment departments, while Sedhiou was selected as the control. In Tambacounda Region, Tambacounda and Goudiry were selected as treatment departments, and Bakel and Koumpentoum as control departments. This clustering of the departments will reduce the spillover effect because treated and non-treated households are located in different departments. Propensity score matching was used to select similar treatments and control households based on the following observable household characteristics.
1. Household size 2. Total domestic assets 3. Number of irrigated crops 4. Number of tree varieties grown 5. Number of income sources 6. Number of agricultural practices 7. Membership to social groups or multi-stakeholder platforms 8. Type of toilet, such as a flush-to-pit latrine or flush-to-toilet 9. Type of housing 10. Occupation of target respondent, such as household chores or farming crops or livestock 11. Source of drinking water
2.4 Sample size determination The household was the main target unit for the baseline survey. A multistage sampling strategy supported the selection of survey respondents. Through Cochran’s sampling framework (Cochran, 1977), we calculated a representative sample for each indicator and an average for all indicators. We also computed a target minimum sample size of 1,500 households at probability of 0.05 (Table 1). Appropriate to large populations, the Cochran formula allowed us to calculate an ideal sample size given a desired degree of precision, level of effect sizes for different indicators, and confidence level, as well as the estimated proportion of a particular attribute present in the population.
17 Adaptation and Valorization of Entrepreneurship in Irrigated Agriculture (AVENIR) Baseline Study
TABLE 1 Sample sizes of the treatment and control groups across departments
REGION DEPARTMENT ASSIGNED VILLAGES VILLAGES HOUSEHOLDS MALE FEMALE WOMEN TOTAL TREATMENT SAMPLED SAMPLED SAMPLED PER YOUTHS YOUTHS SAM- HOUSE- PER PER VILLAGE (%) SAMPLED, SAMPLED, PLED, HOLDS DEPART- DEPART- 70% WOMEN AGED 18- AGED 18- AGED 35 SAM- MENT MENT = 5; 30% 34 YEARS 34 YEARS + YEARS PLED (#) (%) YOUNG (%) (%) (%) (#) PEOPLE = 2
Sedhiou Bounkiling Treatment 22 46.5 7 18 11 71 154
Goudomp Treatment 25 53.5 7 16 15 69 175
Sedhiou Control 60 100 7 14 20 66 420
Tambacounda Tambacounda Treatment 24 50.2 7 13 16 71 167
Goudiry Treatment 23 49.9 7 14 13 71 161
Bakel Control 26 40 7 19 21 58 182
Koumpentoum Control 35 60 7 14 16 70 244
Total Sample 215 N/A N/A 15 16 68 1,503
2.5 Socioeconomic, food security, and nutrition indicators We computed specific socioeconomic, food security, and nutrition indicators for the AVENIR baseline survey. After ascertaining through literature review a lack of sufficient baselines (other similar prior projects in the study regions) for the target project sites, we objectively selected these indicators of project performance outcomes (Table 2).
TABLE 2 Description of variables
VARIABLE DESCRIPTION
Nonagricultural income Self-reported household income from remittances and other income-generating activities (CFAF) Agricultural income Income for the sale of tree products, harvested crops, and crop products for the last 12 months (CFAF) Adoption intensity Number of agricultural practices adopted by a household (count) Asset value Economic value of a household’s assets, including housing, land assets, livestock, and farm and domestic assets (CFAF) Household wealth index A relative measure of household living standards accounting for household utilities, productive assets, and nonproductive assets Household size Number of household members in the last 12 months (count) Energy access Main sources of energy for lighting and cooking Extension access Distance to the nearest agricultural extension office (kilometers) Health access Distance in traveling time to the nearest health center (minutes)
18 Adaptation and Valorization of Entrepreneurship in Irrigated Agriculture (AVENIR) Baseline Study
VARIABLE DESCRIPTION
Shocks Number of climatic shocks experienced in the last 10 years (count) Livestock owned Number of livestock animals owned by the household (count) Crops grown Number of crop varieties grown by the household (count) Trees Number of trees varieties grown by household (count) Other income sources Income sources apart from agricultural income or remittances (CFAF) Remittance income Income received from household members living outside the area or country (CFAF) Farming area Total area of farming plot owned or leased (acres) Number of migrants per Number of household members who have been or are still working outside the area household or country, who usually support the household (count) Food groups Number of food groups consumed by the household in the past 7 days, out of 12 food groups (count) Mobile phone Number of mobile phones the household uses for any financial transactions (count) Extension Number of instances of extension advice received in the last 12 months (count) Food Consumption Score A composite score of household dietary diversity, frequency of food group (FCS) consumption, and relative nutritional importance of food groups consumed by the household in the past 7 days (categories: poor, borderline, acceptable) Household Dietary Food groups consumed by the household using 12 food groups (count) Diversity Score (HDDS) Food expenditure share Proportion of household expenditure used for food as compared to the total food (FES) and non-food expenditure (categories: low, moderate, high, very high) Household Food Index of the severity of food insecurity, using a standard set of nine questions to Insecurity Access Scale represent increasing levels of severity over a period of 7 days (score from 0 to 27; the (HFIAS) higher the score, the more food insecurity the household experienced) Social groups Number of social groups or multi-stakeholder platforms that involve the household (count) Borrowing Amount the household borrowed in the last 12 months (CFAF) Savings Amount the household saved in the last 12 months (CFAF) Save Amount the household saved in the last 12 months (CFA)
19 Adaptation and Valorization of Entrepreneurship in Irrigated Agriculture (AVENIR) Baseline Study 3.0 Household Survey Results
Table 3 presents characteristics of the 1,503 households surveyed. The households are large, with about thirteen members on average. A majority are multi-person households―that is, a group of two or more persons who together occupy the housing unit and provide themselves with food and possibly other essentials for living (OECD, 2013).
On average, each surveyed household has three parcels of land for farming, which are either owned or leased, equivalent to about 17 acres. The land parcels are often not very fragmented, which might facilitate the introduction of agricultural mechanizations and the application of inputs. About 28% of households include at least one member who has migrated to a different part of Senegal or out of the country; some households report up to 11 members who have migrated outside the village.
On average, the surveyed households engage in 1 climate-smart agricultural practice and, during the 7 days prior to the survey, consumed 4 out of a possible total of 12 food groups. The commonest food groups are cereals, consumed by 99.9% of households; fish, consumed by 54%; oil, consumed by 50%; sugars, consumed by 47%; vegetables, consumed by 41%; and condiments, consumed by 39%. Many households belong to at least one social group; the majority associate with agricultural producer groups. Most of the sampled household did not receive any agricultural extension advice in the past 12 months. A few households―only about 6%―report receiving up to a maximum of 4 agricultural extension services in the past 12 months.
TABLE 3 Demographic and farm characteristics of the survey households
N MEAN MIN MAX
Household size (#) 1,503 13.1 2 62 Children below 5 years of age (#) 1,503 1.4 0 16 Age of study respondent (years) 1,503 39.7 18 96 Parcels of land for agriculture (#) 1,503 2.9 1 22 Area of farming plot, owned or leased (acres) 1,503 17.1 0 1,350 Tree varieties grown by household (#) 1,503 0.9 0 8 Crop varieties grown by household (#) 1,503 2.3 0 5 Migrants per household (#) 1,503 0.5 0 11 Irrigated crops (#) 1,503 1.2 0 5 Climate-smart agriculture technologies (#) 1,503 1.5 1 7 Social groups or multi-stakeholder platforms (#) 1,503 0.6 0 3
Food groups consumed by the household in the past 7 days, out 1,503 4.3 1 12 of 12 total food groups (#)
Instances of extension advice received in the last 12 months (#) 1,503 0.1 0 4
Note: N refers to the total sample size.
20 Adaptation and Valorization of Entrepreneurship in Irrigated Agriculture (AVENIR) Baseline Study
3.1 Target respondent characteristics The average age of survey respondents is 40 years; the oldest is 96 years of age. Approximately 84% of the sampled beneficiaries are female (Table 4). Monogamous marriages are common among 55% of respondents; only 27% reported being in polygamous marriages. More than three quarters (80%) of respondents have not received a formal education; less than 15% have attained basic, primary, and secondary education; and less than 5% have attained higher education in a vocational school, college, or university. In terms of the main occupation, the majority (89%) reported farming crops and livestock as their main occupation, less than 2% are unemployed, and only about 0.3% are in salaried employment.
TABLE 4 Demographic characteristics of the baseline survey respondents SEDHIOU BOUNKILING GOUDOMP BAKEL KOUMPENTOUM GOUDIRY TAMBACOUNDA TOTAL HOUSEHOLDS OVERALL PERCENT
Male respondents 60 28 29 38 34 26 22 237 15.8 Female respondents 360 126 146 144 210 135 145 1266 84.2 Age (average in years) 39.6 40.82 37.89 39.1 39.51 41.08 40.5 39.71 N/A
Age groups Youths aged 18-34 years 163 45 63 82 79 47 53 532 35.5 Individuals aged 35+ years 255 109 112 99 165 114 114 968 64.5 Marital status Married monogamous 208 57 102 109 146 113 91 826 55.0 Married polygamous 126 69 37 34 61 28 46 401 26.7 Widow or widower 45 10 15 16 20 13 17 136 9.0 Divorced 2 1 2 1 1 1 2 10 0.7 Separated ------1 1 0.1 Partnered 1 1 1 - - - - 3 0.2 Never married 38 16 18 22 16 6 10 126 8.4 Education level No formal education 315 139 130 141 213 141 130 1209 80.4 Some primary education 53 5 11 21 5 12 21 128 8.5 Completed primary education 12 2 12 6 11 5 2 50 3.3 Some secondary education 2 ------2 0.1 Completed secondary education 18 5 7 6 4 1 5 46 3.1
21 Adaptation and Valorization of Entrepreneurship in Irrigated Agriculture (AVENIR) Baseline Study SEDHIOU BOUNKILING GOUDOMP BAKEL KOUMPENTOUM GOUDIRY TAMBACOUNDA TOTAL HOUSEHOLDS OVERALL PERCENT
Vocational school 4 - 3 4 1 1 1 14 0.9 Some university education 1 - - 3 - - - 4 0.3 Completed university education - - - - 1 - - 1 0.1 Some college education 10 - 6 - 3 1 3 23 1.5 Completed college education 5 3 6 1 6 - 5 26 1.7 Main occupation None 3 - 1 8 - 4 1 17 1.1 Farming crops and livestock 171 14 45 39 140 83 34 526 35.0 Salaried employment - 2 2 1 - - - 5 0.3 Self-employed off-farm 2 - 1 1 1 1 - 6 0.4 Casual laborer on-farm - - - - - 1 1 2 0.1 Casual laborer off-farm 4 - - - - - 1 5 0.3 Student 7 1 4 1 2 2 - 17 1.1 Herding 1 ------1 0.1 Household chores 9 47 2 6 - 7 5 76 5.1 Handcrafts, weaving, basket making 3 2 - - - - - 5 0.3 Business, on-farm, off-farm, or both - - - 1 - - - 1 0.1 Farming crops only 214 82 113 123 97 62 116 807 53.7 Commerce 4 6 6 3 1 9 29 1.9 Other 2 - 1 2 1 - - 6 0.4
Most of the surveyed households have one tree variety that the household grows on the parcels of land. On average two crop varieties were grown in the past twelve months with one being irrigated. The three most common tree varieties grown by the households in the regions of Sedhiou and Tambacounda are cashew, mango, and dimb trees (Figure 4a and 4b). The most common crop varieties are okra, bissap, and rice (Figure 5a and 5b).
22 Adaptation and Valorization of Entrepreneurship in Irrigated Agriculture (AVENIR) Baseline Study
Number of households growing different tree varieties
Number of households i ua a ango e on Bouye Bao a ranges oringa a pa ashe Anacarde ther trees
Nu er of households ercent of households
a Number and percentage of households growing different tree varieties in Sedhiou and Tambacounda
households growing different tree households growing different tree varieties IN SEDHIOU varieties IN TAMBACONDA
Number of households Number of households i i ua a ango e on ango e on Banana Banana ranges oringa ranges a pa il pal A ocado a arind ther trees ther trees Bouye Bao a Bouye Bao a ashe Anacarde ashe Anacarde
Nu er of households ercent of households
Number and percentage of households growing different tree varieties in Sedhiou and Tambacounda 23 Adaptation and Valorization of Entrepreneurship in Irrigated Agriculture (AVENIR) Baseline Study
Number of households growing different crop varieties
Number of households Rice u o (o ra) hilli i ento Bissap nion Banana
Nu er of households ercent of households
a Number and percentage of households growing different crop varieties in Sedhiou and Tambacounda
households growing different households growing different CROP varieties IN SEDHIOU CROP varieties IN TAMBACONDA
Number of households Number of households Rice Rice nion nion Bissap Bissap Banana Banana u o (o ra) u o (o ra) hilli i ento hilli i ento
Nu er of households ercent of households
Number and percentage of households growing different crop varieties in Sedhiou and Tambacounda
24 Adaptation and Valorization of Entrepreneurship in Irrigated Agriculture (AVENIR) Baseline Study
The baseline survey collected information on the quantity of tree products harvested in the past 12 months and the income earned. Cashew, orange, tangerine, and mango trees yield the highest income (Figure 6a and 6b). The average income is negligible for some tree varieties, indicating that the household did not sell any harvested products.
Average income from sale of tree products
a arind o egranate ita he A ocado i oringa ua a adde il pal a pa Bouye Bao a ther tree arieties e on ango andarin angerine ranges ashe Anacarde Income (CFA)
a
25 Adaptation and Valorization of Entrepreneurship in Irrigated Agriculture (AVENIR) Baseline Study
Average income from sale of Average income from sale of tree products IN TAMBACONDA tree products IN SEDHIOU
ita he ita he a arind a arind o egranate o egranate A ocado A ocado il pal i adde oringa i ua a e on andarin angerine ashe Anacarde il pal oringa adde ua a a pa ranges ther specify a pa Bouye Bao a Bouye Bao a e on ther specify ango ango ranges andarin angerine ashe Anacarde Income (CFAF) Income (CFAF)
Similarly, the study captured income from the sale of crop products in the past 12 months and income earned from agro-processing activities (Figure 7a and 7b). Bananas produce the highest income, followed by chilis, onions, and okra. Rice, on the other hand, is associated with the lowest average income, possibly because most of the rice is utilized for domestic consumption. Generally, tree and crop varieties that are produced by large numbers of households are those needed for household consumption, whereas a smaller number of households (Figures 4−7) grows crops for commercial purposes.
Average income from sale of crop products
Income (CFA) Banana hilli i ento nion u o (o ra) Bissap Rice
a
26 Adaptation and Valorization of Entrepreneurship in Irrigated Agriculture (AVENIR) Baseline Study
Average income from sale of Average income from sale of crop products IN TAMBACONDA crop products IN SEDHIOU
Rice Rice
Bissap Bissap
u o (o ra) u o (o ra)
hilli i ento nion
nion hilli i ento
Banana Banana
Income (CFAF) Income (CFAF)
3.2 Access to basic services Access to basic services such as input markets, output markets, water, health care, and agricultural extension are captured in the baseline survey. On average, it takes 52 walking minutes to access output markets (Table 5). However, walking distance to output markets can vary from less than 5 minutes for households located next to a market to 15 hours away by foot. Input markets for agroforestry tree seed are generally closest to homesteads, taking an average of 50 walking minutes to reach.
Access to sources of water for domestic use requires 8 minutes of walking on average, and a maximum of 70 minutes. Some of the study households (32%) have a borehole or are supplied with piped water; hence, it takes them less than a minute to reach the source of water. The nearest hospitals and health clinics are on average 54 walking minutes away from households. The time it takes to reach them can range from less than a minute to 18 hours.
For the few households that have received agricultural extension advice in the last 12 months, the source of information is located on average 34.5 kilometers away, or as far as 250 kilometers away depending on the location of the household (Table 5). Access to tree products markets is relatively limited, and members of target households need to travel the longest distances to obtain this service.
TABLE 5 Access to basic services
AVERAGE TIME MIN TIME MAX TIME (MINUTE) (MINUTES) (MINUTES)
Market to sell tree products 31.8 0.3 30,000 Market to purchase crop seeds 50.3 0.7 338.3 Market to sell crops (general product markets) 51.6 1 900
27 Adaptation and Valorization of Entrepreneurship in Irrigated Agriculture (AVENIR) Baseline Study
AVERAGE TIME MIN TIME MAX TIME (MINUTE) (MINUTES) (MINUTES)
Nearest market to sell agro-processed products 44.9 1 300 Main water source 7.5 0.5 70 Clinics or hospitals serving children 54.2 1 1,080 Distance to sources of extension information (km) 34.5 1 250
Notes: Time is presented in walking minutes
The study households were asked the type of main road that is used to reach villages in the two study regions. As shown in Table 6, dirt or gravel roads are the most commonly used in the two regions (55%) and are more prevalent in Tambacounda Region (61%) than Sedhiou Region (49%). Foot trails are the second most commonly available type of roads (21%). Only 5% of all households have paved roads to access villages, and the percentage is lower in Tambacounda (3%) than in Sedhiou (7%).
TABLE 6 Percentage of main type of road to access the village by study regions
TYPE OF ROAD SEDHIOU TAMBACOUNDA OVERALL
Paved road, e.g., asphalt (%) 6.8 3.1 4.9 Dirt or gravel road (%) 48.5 60.6 54.6 Mixed paved and dirt (%) 1.6 1.5 1.5 Footpath or trail (%) 20.2 21.4 20.8 Total number of households 749 754 1,503
In Sedhiou Region, Goudomp Department had the highest percentage (52%) of households that reported that in the past year, they could not access required health services. Similarly, in Tambacounda Region, Koumpentoum Department had the highest percentage (57%) of households that could not access health services in the past year (Figure 8).
28 Adaptation and Valorization of Entrepreneurship in Irrigated Agriculture (AVENIR) Baseline Study
Percentage of households receiving HEALTH SERVICES
a acounda
oudiry
ou pentou No Ba el es
oudo p
Boun iling
Sedhiou
Percent (%)
To understand the connection between social capital and politics at the local governance level, the study asked whether households know elected officials. In Sedhiou Region, Bounkiling Department has the highest percentage (40%) of households that reported that they personally know an elected leader or government official. In Tambacounda Region, meanwhile, Tambacounda Department has the highest percentage at 22% (Figure 9).
Percentage of households that know an elected official
a acounda
oudiry
ou pentou No Ba el es
oudo p
Boun iling
Sedhiou
Percent (%)
ed official 29 Adaptation and Valorization of Entrepreneurship in Irrigated Agriculture (AVENIR) Baseline Study 4.0 Intermediate outcome 1100: The socioeconomic well-being and resilience of farming households
In this section, we present results data about household wealth, utilities, productive and non-productive assets, food consumption, and food expenditure.
4.1 Household wealth and assets In constructing a household wealth index as a proxy indicator, we drew on information about household utilities, productive assets, and nonproductive assets. The study collected data about what households owned based on an extensive list of assets and other housing characteristics that reflect their economic status (Table 7).
TABLE 7 Classification of assets used to compute wealth index
HOUSEHOLD UTILITIES PRODUCTIVE ASSETS NON-PRODUCTIVE ASSETS
• Number of sleeping rooms • Livestock • TV • Floor materials • Farming tools • DVD player • Wall materials • Transport tools • Refrigerator • Roof materials • Radio • Source(s) of lighting • Source(s) of cooking fuel • Source(s) of household drinking water • Type(s) of toilet
The wealth index was created using principal component analysis. Households were then categorized into low, middle, and high wealth quintiles. Out of the 1,503 sampled households, 92% are in lower wealth quintile, 6% are in middle wealth quintile, and only 2% are in high wealth quintile. Households in the lower wealth quintile have a lower socioeconomic status than those in the middle and higher quintiles.
The differences in wealth categories between departments is significant (p-value = 0.0000). Figure10 below presents pairwise comparisons of the departments by wealth index. Goudomp department has the highest number of households in the high-wealth quintile category at 4%. Bounkiling department has 4% of households in the high-wealth index quintile, Tambacounda department has 1.2%, and Koumpentoum department has about 0.4%. Koumpentoum (98%) and Sedhiou (96%) departments have the highest numbers of households in the low wealth category.
30 Adaptation and Valorization of Entrepreneurship in Irrigated Agriculture (AVENIR) Baseline Study
Households wealth quintiles by department
Percent (%)
Sedhiou Boun iling oudo p Ba el ou pentou oudiry a acounda
o iddle igh
10 Comparison of household wealth quintile by department
Assigned treatment groups have relatively low numbers of households in the low-wealth quintile at 89%, compared to assigned control groups at 95%. Consequently, there are more households in middle- and high-wealth quintiles (11%) in treatment areas, while in control areas, these quintiles represent about 4% of the sampled households (Figure 11). The differences in the number of households in different wealth quintiles between control areas and treatment areas is significant (p-value = 0.0002).
Households wealth quintiles by assigned treatment and control groups
Percent (%)
Assigned control Assigned treat ent
o iddle igh
11 Comparison of wealth quintile by treatment and control groups
31 Adaptation and Valorization of Entrepreneurship in Irrigated Agriculture (AVENIR) Baseline Study
4.2 Nutrition The baseline survey captured information on food consumption by household members with the aim of generating nutrition and food security indicators. These indicators are the following: (a) Food Consumption Score (FCS); (b) Food Expenditure Share (FES); (c) Household Dietary Diversity Score (HDDS); and (d) Household Food Insecurity Access Scale (HFIAS).
4.2.1 Food Consumption Score The FCS is a composite score based on household dietary diversity, the frequency of food group consumption in a household, and the relative nutritional importance of different food groups consumed by that household during the 7 days before the survey (WFP, 2008; Leroy et al., 2015). The FCS reveals the quality and quantity of food access at the household level and can be used to estimate prevalence of different levels of food insecurity by placing households into one of three categories: poor, borderline, or acceptable food consumption. In this study, the household score has a maximum value of 112, which implies that each of the various food groups was consumed daily over the past seven days. The household score is compared with preestablished thresholds that indicate the status of the household’s food consumption. The scoring thresholds for these three categories are as follows: (a) poor: 0–21, (b) borderline: 21.5–35, and (c) acceptable: >35. The higher the FCS, the greater the dietary diversity and the frequency of food consumed. A high FCS thus increases the likelihood that a household achieves nutrient adequacy. In our study, about 93% of households are in the poor food consumption category, while only 7% are in the borderline and acceptable food consumption categories (Figure 12).
Household food consumption category
Accepta le
Borderline
oor
Percent (%)
12 Food Consumption Score categories for the study households
Treatment areas have a larger number of households in the borderline and acceptable food consumption categories at 12%, compared to control areas at 3% (Figure 13). Similarly, treatment areas have a smaller number of households in the poor food consumption category at 88%, compared to control areas at 97%. The differences between the poor and borderline food consumption categories in treatment and control areas are significant (p-value = 0.0000).
32 Adaptation and Valorization of Entrepreneurship in Irrigated Agriculture (AVENIR) Baseline Study
Households food consumption category by assigned treatment and control groups
Percent (%)
Assigned control Assigned treat ent
oor Borderline Accepta le
1 Food Consumption Score categories for treatment and control groups
Almost all the study households from Sedhiou Department (99%) and Goudiry Department (99%) fall into the poor food consumption category (Figure 14). Across departments in the two study regions, Tambacounda Department has the smallest number of households (78%) in low food consumption and the largest number of households in the borderline food consumption category (22%). There is a significant difference in food consumption categories between departments in the Sedhiou and Tambacounda Regions (p-value = 0.0002).
Households food consumption category by department
Percent (%)
Sedhiou Boun iling oudo p Ba el ou pentou oudiry a acounda
oor Borderline Accepta le
1 Food consumption score categories by study departments
33 Adaptation and Valorization of Entrepreneurship in Irrigated Agriculture (AVENIR) Baseline Study
To better understand the diet quality situation of households in relation to their socio-economic status, we further compare the household’s FCS with their wealth status. As shown in Figure 15, households in the low wealth quintile have the highest number of households (94%) in the poor food consumption category. There was a significant difference in FCS across the wealth quintiles (p-value = 0.0002).
Households food consumption category by wealth index quintiles
Percent (%)
o iddle igh
oor Borderline Accepta le
1 Food consumption score categories by wealth index quintiles
4.2.2 Food Expenditure Share (FES) The FES is a measure of household economic vulnerability and is used as an indicator of household food security. The FES is generated by calculating the proportion of household expenditure on food to the overall food and non-food expenditure. The larger the share of household income spent on food, the more vulnerable the household is to food insecurity (Government of Rwanda and WFP, 2015).
In this study, we categorized households into four groups according to their food expenditure share in the past 30 days. Households that spent less than 50% of their total expenditure on food were placed into the low food expenditure category with a score of 1. Those that spent between 50% and 64.9% were placed into the moderate category with a score of 2, between 65% and 74.9% in the high category with a score of 3, and over 75% in the very high category with a score of 4. About 62% of households are in the low food expenditure category, indicating low food insecurity. Approximately 16% of the study households are in high and very high food expenditure categories, indicating high food insecurity (Figure 16). Only about 12% of households reported not having purchased food items in the past 30 days or nonfood items in the past 3 months.
34 Adaptation and Valorization of Entrepreneurship in Irrigated Agriculture (AVENIR) Baseline Study
Households food expenditure share
Very igh ES
igh ES
oderate ES
o ES
Percent (%)
1
The percentage of households in the high and very high food expenditure categories is greater for households in the control locations at about 20%, compared to those in the treatment locations at about 11% (Figure 17). A majority of the control and treatment households are in low FES category, indicating low food insecurity. The differences between food expenditure share categories for control and treatment households is significant (p-value = 0.0000).
Households food expenditure share by assigned treatment and control groups
Percent (%)
Assigned control Assigned treat ent
o ES oderate ES igh ES Very high ES
1
35 Adaptation and Valorization of Entrepreneurship in Irrigated Agriculture (AVENIR) Baseline Study
Relative to other study departments, Goudomp Department has the highest number of households in the low FES category at 84%, followed by Bounkiling at about 71% (Figure 18). The differences in FES categories between departments is significant (p-value = 0.0000).
Households food expenditure share by departments
Percent (%)
Sedhiou Boun iling oudo p Ba el ou pentou oudiry a acounda
o ES oderate ES igh ES Very high ES
1
We conducted further analysis of household FES by wealth index quintiles. As shown in, The high-wealth quintile has the smallest percentage of households in the low FES category at less than 59%, compared to the middle-wealth quintile at 70% and the low-wealth quintile at 62% (Figure 19). The high-wealth quintile also has the largest percentage of households with very high and high FES at 25%, however, compared to those in the middle-wealth quintile at 18% and the low-wealth quintiles at 18%. The high and very high FES categories indicate a situation of elevated food insecurity.
Households food expenditure share by wealth index quintiles
Percent (%)
o iddle igh
o ES oderate ES igh ES Very high ES
1 Overall household food expenditure share by wealth quintile 36 Adaptation and Valorization of Entrepreneurship in Irrigated Agriculture (AVENIR) Baseline Study
4.2.3 Household Dietary Diversity Score HDDS are used to assess dietary quality and quantity at the household level (Leroy et al., 2015). In this study, we generated HDDS using 12 food groups: cereals; white tubers and roots; legumes; nuts and seeds; vegetables; fruits; meat; eggs; fish and fish products; milk and milk products; sweets and sugars; oils and fats; and spices, condiments, and beverages (FAO, 2011). A household with a higher HDDS is deemed to have a better dietary quality than one with less.
The average HDDS is significantly different (p-value = 3.73e-15) between assigned control and treatment areas. Households in the treatment areas have higher average HDDS at 4.9, compared to those in the control areas at 3.7. However, there is insufficient statistical evidence to determine whether being in assigned treatment areas means having superior dietary quality relative to assigned control areas (Figure 20).
Average household dietary diversity score by assigned treatment and control groups
T-test, p = 3.7e-15
HDDS Assigned control Assigned treat ent
not significant (ns): p > 0.05, *: p ≤ 0.05, **: p ≤ 0.01, ***: p ≤ 0.001, ****: p ≤ 0.0001
20
The average HDDS is significantly different between departments (p-value = 2.2e-15). Among the study departments, Tambacounda has the highest average HDDS at 6.3, followed by Goudomp at 6.1, while Goudiry has the lowest average HDDS at 2.39. In Sedhiou Region, Goudomp Department has a significantly higher average HDDS than Sedhiou Department, which scored 4.3. Similarly, Goudomp Department also has a significantly higher average HDDS than Bounkiling Department, which scored 4.9. In Tambacounda Region, households in Bakel Department have a significantly higher average HDDS of 4.2 than Koumpentoum, which scored 2.5. Similarly, Bakel Department has a significantly higher average HDDS than Goudiry Department. Therefore, we conclude based on this study that there are significant variations in dietary diversity between departments in the same regions such that some have better dietary quality than others, but there is insufficient statistical evidence to determine whether being in departments with higher average dietary diversity indicates a superior diet (Figure 21).
37 Adaptation and Valorization of Entrepreneurship in Irrigated Agriculture (AVENIR) Baseline Study
Average household dietary diversity score by departments
Anova, p 2.2e-16
ns ns HDDS Sedhiou Boun iling oudo p Ba el ou pentou oudiry a acounda
ns: p > 0.05, *: p ≤ 0.05, **: p ≤ 0.01, ***: p ≤ 0.001, ****: p ≤ 0.0001
21
We then analyzed the HDDS by household wealth quintiles (Figure 22). The average HDDS is significantly different between different wealth quintiles (p-value = 8.1e-05). Households in the middle-wealth quintile have a significantly higher average HDDS of 5.4 compared to households in low-wealth quintile, which score 4.2.
Average household dietary diversity score by wealth index quintiles Anova, p = 8.1e-05
ns ns HDDS o iddle igh
ns: p > 0.05, *: p ≤ 0.05, **: p ≤ 0.01, ***: p ≤ 0.001, ****: p ≤ 0.0001
22 Household Dietary Diversity Score by wealth index quintile
38 Adaptation and Valorization of Entrepreneurship in Irrigated Agriculture (AVENIR) Baseline Study
4.2.4 Household Food Insecurity Access Scale The HFIAS uses a set of questions that represent universal domains and sub-domains of experiencing household food insecurity. It specifically probes inadequate access to food. For this study, the HFIAS indicator was developed based on previous publications (Coates et al., 2007; Leroy et al., 2015). The HFIAS value ranges from 0−27. A HFIAS of zero indicates that the household is food secure, and a HFIAS of 27 indicates the household is experiencing severe food insecurity.
The average HFIAS for all study households is 4.8, with a minimum of zero and maximum of 27. On average, households in the treatment areas have a lower average HFIAS value of 4.80 compared to those in the control areas at 4.82, but the difference is not statistically significant (p-value = 0.93) (Figure 23).
Average household food insecurity access scale by assigned treatment and control groups
T-test, p = 0.93
ns
HFIAS Assigned control Assigned treat ent
ns: p > 0.05, *: p ≤ 0.05, **: p ≤ 0.01, ***: p ≤ 0.001, ****: p ≤ 0.0001
2
Among the study departments, Goudiry Department has the highest average HFIAS value of 7.1, followed by Koumpentoum at 6.5. In Sedhiou Region, there is no significant difference in the average HFIAS of different departments. However, Bounkiling has the lowest average HFIAS value of 3.4. In Tambacounda Region, Bakel Department is statistically food secure with an average HFIAS value of 4.6 compared to Koumpentoum Department at 6.5 and Goudiry Department at 7.0. In addition, Tambacounda Department is statistically more food secure at 5.0 than Goudiry Department at 7.0 and Koumpentoum Department at 6.5 (Figure 24).
39 Adaptation and Valorization of Entrepreneurship in Irrigated Agriculture (AVENIR) Baseline Study
Average household food insecurity access scale by departments
Anova, p 2.2e-16
ns
ns
ns ns
ns
HFIAS Sedhiou Boun iling oudo p Ba el ou pentou oudiry a acounda
ns: p > 0.05, *: p ≤ 0.05, **: p ≤ 0.01, ***: p ≤ 0.001, ****: p ≤ 0.0001
2
Households in the low-wealth quintile have an average HFIAS value of 5.0, while those in high-wealth quintile have an average value of 1.4, indicating that those in the high-wealth quintile are more food secure than those in the low-wealth quintile. The average HFIAS is significantly different between different wealth quintiles, with a p-value of 6.5e-09 (Figure 25).
Average household food insecurity access scale by wealth index quintiles Anova, p = 6.5e-09
ns HFIAS o iddle igh
ns: p > 0.05, *: p ≤ 0.05, **: p ≤ 0.01, ***: p ≤ 0.001, ****: p ≤ 0.0001
2 Household Food Insecurity Access Scale values by wealth quintile
40 Adaptation and Valorization of Entrepreneurship in Irrigated Agriculture (AVENIR) Baseline Study
4.3 Socio-economic empowerment This section presents the socioeconomic activities conducted by study households, including the sale of agricultural commodities and agro-processing.
4.3.1 Sale of agricultural commodities This study collected information about whether the households sold any agricultural commodities or products in the past 12 months. Three specific variables―sale of tree products, crops harvested, and crop products―were used to calculate a proxy of agricultural income for each household over the 12 months prior to the baseline survey. The value of sales was captured in local currency, Communauté Financière Africaine francs (CFAF).
The majority of farming households in both Sedhiou and Tambacounda Regions, approximately 71%, were involved in the sale of harvested tree crops and crop products, while about 29% reported no income from these sources. The average annual agricultural income for all the farming households in the two regions is 132,245 CFAF or approximately US$ 240, with some households reporting an annual income of over 1.3 million CFAF or approximately US$ 2,400 (Figure 26). The assigned control areas have a significantly higher average agricultural income of 143,143 CFAF than the assigned treatment group does at 118,211 CFAF (p-value = 0.02). Disintegrating household annual incomes by departments shows that study households in Goudomp have the highest average annual income of 213,451 CFAF followed by Sedhiou at 177,341 CFAF, Bakel at 171,270 CFAF, and finally Goudiry at 53,976 CFAF (Figure 27).
Average agricultural income by assigned treatment and control groups
T-test, p = 0.021
Income (CFA) Assigned control Assigned treat ent
ns: p > 0.05, *: p ≤ 0.05, **: p ≤ 0.01, ***: p ≤ 0.001, ****: p ≤ 0.0001
2
41 Adaptation and Valorization of Entrepreneurship in Irrigated Agriculture (AVENIR) Baseline Study
Average agricultural income by departments
Anova, p 2.2e-16
ns
ns
Income (CFA) Sedhiou Boun iling oudo p Ba el ou pentou oudiry a acounda
ns: p > 0.05, *: p ≤ 0.05, **: p ≤ 0.01, ***: p ≤ 0.001, ****: p ≤ 0.0001
2
We further assessed the average agricultural incomes of households in each wealth quintile. Households in the high-wealth quintile have a higher average agricultural income of 284,533 CFAF than those in the low-wealth quintile at 128,014 CFAF and the middle-wealth quintile at 157,257 CFAF (Figure 28). These differences in average agricultural income are significant (p-value = 0.0008).
Average agricultural income by wealth index quintiles
Anova, p = 0.00084
ns ns
Income (CFA) o iddle igh
ns: p > 0.05, *: p ≤ 0.05, **: p ≤ 0.01, ***: p ≤ 0.001, ****: p ≤ 0.0001
2 Annual agricultural income by wealth quintile
42 Adaptation and Valorization of Entrepreneurship in Irrigated Agriculture (AVENIR) Baseline Study
4.3.2 Additional income sources Bounkiling Department has the highest average income from remittances and other sources, followed by Bakel Department (Figure 29). Koumpentoum Department has the lowest average remittance income received by sampled households. The higher the wealth index quintile, the higher the average income (Figure 30). Finally, in both the control and treatment areas, the average proportion of income obtained from agriculture, remittances, and other sources is similar (Figure 31).
Income distribution by departments
Average Income (CFA) Sedhiou Boun iling oudo p Ba el ou pentou oudiry a acounda
Agricultural inco e ther sources of inco e Re ittance inco e
2
Income distribution by wealth index quintiles
Average Income (CFA) o iddle igh
Agricultural inco e ther sources of inco e Re ittance inco e
0 Income sources by wealth quintile
43 Adaptation and Valorization of Entrepreneurship in Irrigated Agriculture (AVENIR) Baseline Study
Income distribution by assigned treatment and control groups
Average Income (CFA) Assigned control Assigned treat ent
Agricultural inco e ther sources of inco e Re ittance inco e
1
4.3.3 Access to financial services Only 12% of households indicate that they have a bank account (Figure 32). In Goudiry Department, none of the sampled households reported owning a bank account. Bakel Department has the highest number of households that own a bank account at 27%, followed by Tambacounda Department at 17% and Goudomp Department at 11% (Figure 33). More households in assigned control areas (14%) own bank accounts than in assigned treatment areas (9%) (Figure 34). The high-wealth quintile includes more households that own bank accounts (38%) than the low-wealth quintile (Figure 35).
Household ownership of a bank account
es
No
Percent (%)
2
44 Adaptation and Valorization of Entrepreneurship in Irrigated Agriculture (AVENIR) Baseline Study
Ownership of bank account by department
Percent (%)
Sedhiou Boun iling oudo p Ba el ou pentou oudiry a acounda
No es
Ownership of a bank account in assigned treatment and control groups
Percent (%)
Assigned control Assigned treat ent
No es
45 Adaptation and Valorization of Entrepreneurship in Irrigated Agriculture (AVENIR) Baseline Study
Ownership of bank account by wealth quintile
Percent (%)
o iddle igh
No es
Ownership of a bank account by wealth quintile
4.3.4 Digital financial services More than 51% of the households reported that they have a mobile phone for use in financial transactions (Figure 36). Goudomp Department encompasses the highest number of households, about 71%, that use mobile phones for financial transactions. Goudiry Department has the highest number of households that do not use mobile phones for financial transitions at over 71% (Figure 37). In the assigned treatment and control areas, households use mobile phones for financial transactions in almost equal proportions (Figure 38). The higher its wealth quintile, the more likely it is that a household uses a mobile phone for financial transactions (Figure 39).
Use of mobile phones for financial transactions
No
es
Percent (%)
Use of mobile phones for financial transactions
46 Adaptation and Valorization of Entrepreneurship in Irrigated Agriculture (AVENIR) Baseline Study
Use of mobile phones for financial transactions by department
Percent (%)
Sedhiou Boun iling oudo p Ba el ou pentou oudiry a acounda
No es
Use of mobile phones for financial transactions by department
Using mobile phone for financial transaction by assigned treatment and control groups
Percent (%)
Assigned control Assigned treat ent
No es
Use of mobile phones for financial transactions in the treatment and control groups
47 Adaptation and Valorization of Entrepreneurship in Irrigated Agriculture (AVENIR) Baseline Study
Using mobile phone for financial transaction by wealth quintile
Percent (%)
o iddle igh
No es
Use of a mobile phone for financial transactions by wealth quintile
4.3.4.1 Regular monetary savings A majority of households (67%) do not save cash regularly, with only 33% indicating that some members of their household save (Figure 40). Koumpentoum Department has the smallest number of households whose members save money regularly at 14%, while Goudiry Department ranks second-lowest at 19%. Bakel Department includes the largest number of households whose members save money regularly at 47%, followed by Goudomp at 41% and Tambacounda Department at 40% (Figure 41). In assigned treatment and control areas, household members save cash regularly in almost equal proportions (Figure 42). Lower wealth quintiles contain smaller numbers of households whose members regularly save money (Figure 43).
Household members who save cash regularly
es
No
Percent (%)
0
48 Adaptation and Valorization of Entrepreneurship in Irrigated Agriculture (AVENIR) Baseline Study Household members who save cash regularly by department
Percent (%)
Sedhiou Boun iling oudo p Ba el ou pentou oudiry a acounda
No es
1
Household members who save cash regularly by assigned treatment and control group
Percent (%)
Assigned control Assigned treat ent
No es
2
49 Adaptation and Valorization of Entrepreneurship in Irrigated Agriculture (AVENIR) Baseline Study
Household members who save cash regularly by wealth index quintile
Percent (%)
o iddle igh
No es
Household members who save cash regularly by wealth quintile
4.3.4.2 Access to credit services Only 41% of households indicated that they received credit services in the past 12 months (Figure 44).
Access to credit
es
No
Percent (%)
Tambacounda Department encompasses the highest number of households, about 50%, who borrowed in the past 12 months, followed by Sedhiou Department at 49%. Additionally, Goudomp includes the smallest number of households (29%) who had any form of credit in the past 12 months (Figure 45).
50 Adaptation and Valorization of Entrepreneurship in Irrigated Agriculture (AVENIR) Baseline Study Credit services by department
Percent (%)
Sedhiou Boun iling oudo p Ba el ou pentou oudiry a acounda
No es
In the assigned treatment and control areas, almost-equal proportions of households have taken some form of credit in the past 12 months (Figure 46).
Credit services in assigned treatment and control groups
Percent (%)
Assigned control Assigned treat ent
No es
More households in the high-wealth quintile, approximately 50%, have made use of credit services in the past 12 months (Figure 47).
51 Adaptation and Valorization of Entrepreneurship in Irrigated Agriculture (AVENIR) Baseline Study
Credit services by wealth quintile
Percent (%)
o iddle igh
No es
Credit services by wealth quintile
Figure 48 below shows different paths of how households in the assigned treatment and control areas save money or use mobile phones for financial transactions. The plot shows that there are more households that use mobile phones for financial transactions than households that have bank accounts. The majority of the households in assigned treatment areas do not use mobile phones for financial transactions also do not include any members who save money regularly. Only a small proportion of households in assigned treatment use mobile phones for financial transactions and include members who save money regularly.
es
es es reat ent
No No
No ontrol
reat ent hone se Sa e Ban
Alluvial plot showing household savings and mobile phone use for financial transactions 52 Adaptation and Valorization of Entrepreneurship in Irrigated Agriculture (AVENIR) Baseline Study
4.3.5 Agro-processing Agro-processing among the study households is quite low, ranging from 1-5% of produce depending on the commodity. Only about 17% of the study households, or 258 households, were involved in the agro- processing of rice, gumbo, chilis, onions, and bissap. Our findings show that 5% of the households process bissap, followed by chilis at 4% and rice at 1% (Figure 49).
Number of households involved in the agro-processing of various crops
Number of households Rice u o (o ra) hilli i ento nion Bissap
Nu er of households ercent of households
Goudomp Department has the highest percentage of households involved in the agro-processing of different crops at 5.5%, followed by Tambacounda Department at 4% and Bakel at 3.6% (Figure 50). In Goudiry Department, only 0.3% of households undertake agro-processing, while none of the study households in Bounkiling reported agro-processing of any crops. Bissap is primarily processed in Tambacounda and Goudomp, while chilis are mostly processed in Goudomp and Bakel (Figure 50).
53 Adaptation and Valorization of Entrepreneurship in Irrigated Agriculture (AVENIR) Baseline Study
Number of households involved in agro-processing of various crops by department
Number of households Sedhiou Boun iling oudo p Ba el ou pentou oudiry a acounda
Rice u o (o ra) hilli i ento nion Bissap
0
Assigned treatment areas have a higher number of households, almost 10%, involved in agro-processing of different crops, compared to control areas at 7.5% (Figure 51). Households in the low-wealth quintile are more involved in agro-processing at a rate of 14%, compared to the middle-wealth quintile at 2.5% and the high-wealth quintile at 0.7%. Bissap is the most commonly agro-processed crop by households in the low-wealth quintile, followed by chilis and gumbo (Figure 52). The average number of processed crops is 0.2, with a maximum of 4 crops in a single household (Figure 53). The overall number of processed crops is higher in the treatment areas at 0.2 than in the control areas at 0.1, at significant p-value of 0.0025.
Number of households involved in agro-processing by assigned treatment and control groups
Number of households Assigned control Assigned treat ent
Rice u o (o ra) hilli i ento nion Bissap
1
54 Adaptation and Valorization of Entrepreneurship in Irrigated Agriculture (AVENIR) Baseline Study
Number of households involved in agro-processing by wealth index quintile
Number of households o iddle igh
Rice u o (o ra) hilli i ento nion Bissap
2 Number of households involved in agro-processing by wealth quintile
Average number of agro-processed crops by assigned treatment and control groups
T-test, p = 0.0025
Number of agro-processed crops Assigned control Assigned treat ent
ns: p > 0.05, *: p ≤ 0.05, **: p ≤ 0.01, ***: p ≤ 0.001, ****: p ≤ 0.0001
In Sedhiou Region, Goudomp Department has a statistically higher average number of processed crops at 0.5 than Bounkiling and Sedhiou do. In Tambacounda Region, Tambacounda at 0.4 and Bakel at 0.3 both have a statistically higher average number of processed crops than Koumpentoum and Goudiry with a p-value of 2.2e-16 (Figure 54).
55 Adaptation and Valorization of Entrepreneurship in Irrigated Agriculture (AVENIR) Baseline Study
Average number of agro-processed crops by departments
Anova, p 2.2e-16
ns
Number of agro-processed crops Sedhiou Boun iling oudo p Ba el ou pentou oudiry a acounda
ns: p > 0.05, *: p ≤ 0.05, **: p ≤ 0.01, ***: p ≤ 0.001, ****: p ≤ 0.0001
Households in the low-wealth quintile have the smallest number of crops for agro-processing at 0.2, while households in the high-wealth quintile have the largest number of crops for agro-processing at 0.5. However, households in the middle-wealth quintile have a statistically higher average number of agro- processed crops in comparisons to households in low-wealth quintile. The difference in the number of agro-processed crops between these two quintiles is significant, with a p-value of 0.01 (Figure 55).
Average number of agro-processed crops by wealth index quintiles
Anova, p = 2e-69
ns ns
Number of agro-processed crops o iddle igh
ns: p > 0.05, *: p ≤ 0.05, **: p ≤ 0.01, ***: p ≤ 0.001, ****: p ≤ 0.0001
Average number of agro-processed crops by wealth quintile 56 Adaptation and Valorization of Entrepreneurship in Irrigated Agriculture (AVENIR) Baseline Study
Drying is the most popular agro-processing activity for bissap, chilis, gumbo, and rice, followed by sorting. To all the crops evaluated, more than one agro-processing activity is applied (Table 8). Only few crops are processed for sale or household consumption with or without packaging. In general, price and customer needs are the major motivation behind applying different agro-processing activities to crops. About 2% of households are involved in chili agro-processing and are aware of better markets, other than their current market, for selling their products. 1.5% of households are involved in onion agro-processing (Figure 56). Goudomp Department has the highest number of households, over 3%, who are involved in agro-processing and are aware of better markets to sell their products elsewhere, followed by Bakel Department at about 1.5%. Chili-processing households are more aware of better markets than onion processing households are (Figure 57). Agro-processing households in treatment areas are more aware of better markets elsewhere, at a rate of over 3%, than households in assigned control areas at a rate of under 2% (Figure 58). More than 4% of agro-processing households in the low-wealth quintile are aware of better markets elsewhere, followed by households in middle-wealth quintile (Figure 59).
TABLE 8 Number of agro-processing activities for crops
DRYING SORTING DEVELOPING PRODUCTS DEVELOPING PRODUCTS FOR SALE OR HOUSEHOLD FOR SALE OR HOUSEHOLD CONSUMPTION WITH CONSUMPTION WITHOUT PACKAGING PACKAGING Bissap 78 11 0 2 Chilli/Pimento 42 38 1 0 Gumbo (okra) 50 22 0 3 Onion 29 35 1 1 Rice 10 3 0 0
Households involved in agro-processing that are aware of better markets
Number of households Rice u o (o ra) hilli i ento nion Bissap
Nu er of households ercent of households
Households involved in agro-processing that are aware of better markets elsewhere
57 Adaptation and Valorization of Entrepreneurship in Irrigated Agriculture (AVENIR) Baseline Study
Households involved in agro-processing that are aware of better markets by department
Number of households Sedhiou Boun iling oudo p Ba el ou pentou oudiry a acounda
Rice u o (o ra) hilli i ento nion Bissap
Number of agro-processing households that are aware of better markets elsewhere by department
Households involved in agro-processing that are aware of better markets by assigned treatment and control groups
Number of households Assigned control Assigned treat ent
Rice u o (o ra) hilli i ento nion Bissap
Number of households that are aware of better markets by assigned treatment and control groups
58 Adaptation and Valorization of Entrepreneurship in Irrigated Agriculture (AVENIR) Baseline Study
Households involved in agro-processing that are aware of better markets by wealth quintile
o iddle igh Number of households
Rice u o (o ra) hilli i ento nion Bissap
Agro-processing households aware of better markets by wealth quintile
4.3.5.1 Constraints to market access The main constraints reported by households that hinder access to better markets elsewhere are transport costs, cited by 36% of households; distance to markets, impacting 32%; and low household production in 27% of households (Figure 60). A few chili, onion, and bissap processing households reported that middlemen, inadequate market information, and taxation policy also hinder their access to better markets (Figure 61).
Constraints to access of better market elsewhere
a ation policy y local authority
Inade uate ar et infor ation
Bro ers iddle en
o production
ar et is too far
ransportation cost
Percent (%)
0
59 Adaptation and Valorization of Entrepreneurship in Irrigated Agriculture (AVENIR) Baseline Study
Constraints to access of better market elsewhere for different agro-processed crops
Percent (%)
u o (o ra) hilli i ento nion Bissap
ransportation cost o production Inade uate ar et infor ation ar et is too far Bro ers iddle en a ation policy y local authority
1 Constraints to market access for different agro-processed crops
4.3.5.2 Financial record keeping and profit making None of the study households indicated that they kept financial records. They stated instead that there is no need to keep financial records, with very few reporting that they keep mental records (Figure 62). For the sale of different crop products, however, most households are aware of profits or losses. A few households involved in agro-processing gumbo, chilis, onions, and bissap, though, are not aware if they ended up with a profit or loss (Figure 63).
Financial record keeping among agro-processing households
Number of households Rice u o (o ra) hilli i ento nion Bissap
NO - have no need for keeping financial records N eep all the re uired infor ation in your head
2
60 Adaptation and Valorization of Entrepreneurship in Irrigated Agriculture (AVENIR) Baseline Study
Awareness of profits or losses from the sale of agro-processed crops
Percent (%) Rice Gumbo (okra) Chilli/Pimento nion Bissap
No - never made any profit or loss Yes - made profit Yes - made loss Do not know
Awareness of profits or losses from the sale of agro-processed products
4.4 Household resilience The household capacity index for resilience was generated using the following themes: a) Shock exposure index The shock exposure index was generated from the number of shocks experienced by the household in 12 months, the perceived severity of those shocks, and the impact of those shocks on income and assets. b) Absorptive capacity index The absorptive capacity index refers to the ability to minimize exposure to shocks and stresses through appropriate measures and coping strategies in order to avoid permanent, negative impacts. The variables used are the availability of informal safety nets, social capital, access to cash savings, access to remittances, asset ownership, shock preparedness and mitigation, availability of or access to insurance, and availability of or access to humanitarian assistance. c) Adaptive capacity index The adaptive capacity index measures the ability to make proactive and informed choices about alternative livelihood strategies based on an understanding of changing conditions. Variables used for this index include linking social capital, social networks, education and training, livelihood diversification, access to information, adoption of improved practices, asset ownership, availability of financial services, aspirations or confidence to adapt, and the locus of control index.
61 Adaptation and Valorization of Entrepreneurship in Irrigated Agriculture (AVENIR) Baseline Study
d) Transformative capacity index The transformative capacity index relates to the governance mechanisms, policies or regulations, infrastructure, community networks, and formal and informal social protection mechanisms that constitute the enabling environment for systemic change. This index was generated using the following variables: availability of or access to formal safety nets, availability of markets, availability of or access to communal natural resources, availability of or access to basic services, availability of or access to infrastructure, availability of or access to agricultural services, bridging social capital, linking social capital, collective action, social cohesion, and local government responsiveness.
4.5 Household resilience clusters and cluster characteristics After generating the index, unsupervised learning (k-mean clustering) was applied to generate the household groups of similarities and dissimilarities. This process generated 3 clusters (Figures 64 and 65). Households in cluster 1 have the characteristics of being adaptive and absorptive. In cluster 2, households have a higher shock exposure, and some characteristics of being transformative. The households in cluster 3 have strong transformative characteristics. Table 9 below indicates the characteristics of the three clusters.
distribution of clusters (Method 1)
luster luster luster
Distribution of household resilience clusters, method 1
62 Adaptation and Valorization of Entrepreneurship in Irrigated Agriculture (AVENIR) Baseline Study
distribution of clusters (Method 2)
Shoc EI
ransfor ati e I A sorpti e I
Adapti e I
luster luster luster
Distribution of household resilience clusters, method 2
TABLE 9 Characteristics of the household resilience clusters
CLUSTER 1 CLUSTER 2 CLUSTER 3
Number of households 130 340 1033 Household capacity index (%) 43.4 59.5 14.9 HDDS 4.7 5.4 3.8 FCS 10.8 11.9 7.9 FES (%) 36.2 40.7 36.2 HFIAS 2.5 4.7 5.2 Agricultural income (CFAF) 175,915 151,200 120,510 Remittance income (CFAF) 401,972 127,137 38,508 Other incomes (CFAF) 1,680,590 971,895 567,233 Number of social groups 0.48 0.69 0.5
63 Adaptation and Valorization of Entrepreneurship in Irrigated Agriculture (AVENIR) Baseline Study
CLUSTER 1 CLUSTER 2 CLUSTER 3
Land area (acres) 25.1 17.1 16.0 Number of shocks 0.4 1.7 0.4 Wealth (Number of households): Low 107 312 971 Middle 18 22 49 High 5 6 13
Accessed credit (%) 9.5 24.1 66.4 Sedhiou region (%): Sedhiou 3.8 27.2 69 Bounkiling 20.1 6.5 73.4 Goudomp 2.3 32.6 65.1
Tambacounda region (%): Bakel 11.5 45.6 42.9 Koumpentoum 9 8.6 82.4 Goudiry 14.3 20.5 65.2 Tambacounda 7.8 13.2 79
Assigned groups (%): Control 7 25.8 67.2 Treatment 10.8 18.6 70.6
64 Adaptation and Valorization of Entrepreneurship in Irrigated Agriculture (AVENIR) Baseline Study 5.0 Intermediate outcome 1200: Sustainable and innovative intensification of irrigated and climate change-adapted crops
In this section we present results pertaining to irrigation, agricultural practices, input use, and sources of climate change-adapted seed and labor.
5.1 Irrigated crops About 58% of the study households irrigate crops. Approximately 37% irrigate gumbo, followed by chilis at 28%, and 11% of households are involved in rice irrigation (Figure 66). Sedhiou Department has the highest number of households practicing the irrigation of different crops at almost 43%, followed by Goudomp at about 24% and Bakel at approximately 22%. In Koumpentoum Department, about 5% of households practice irrigation. In Goudiry, over 7% engage in irrigation, and in Bounkiling, almost 9% of households do. In Sedhiou Department, the gumbo is irrigated by the largest number of households, followed by bissap. Rice is primarily irrigated in Sedhiou Department, followed by Goudomp and Bakel (Figure 67). Assigned control areas encompass a higher number of households that irrigate various crops at 70%, as compared to treatment areas at 54%. In both the treatment and control areas, gumbo is the most commonly irrigated crop. Rice is more often irrigated in control than treatment areas. Also, bissap is more often irrigated in treatment areas (Figure 68). Irrigation is primarily undertaken by the households in the low-wealth quintile, followed by the middle-wealth quintile. Gumbo is predominantly irrigated by households in the low-wealth quintile, followed by chilis (Figure 69).
Households that irrigate various crops
Number of households Rice u o (o ra) hilli i ento nion Bissap
Nu er of households ercent of households
65 Adaptation and Valorization of Entrepreneurship in Irrigated Agriculture (AVENIR) Baseline Study
Households that irrigate various crops by department
Percent (%) Sedhiou Boun iling oudo p Ba el ou pentou oudiry a acounda
Rice u o (o ra) hilli i ento nion Bissap
Households that irrigate various crops in treatment and control areas
Number of households Assigned control Assigned treat ent
Rice u o (o ra) hilli i ento nion Bissap
66 Adaptation and Valorization of Entrepreneurship in Irrigated Agriculture (AVENIR) Baseline Study
Households that irrigate various crops by wealth quintile
Number of households o iddle igh
Rice u o (o ra) hilli i ento nion Bissap
Households that irrigate various crops by wealth quintile
The average number of irrigated crops per household is 1.2, with some households reporting up to 5 irrigated crops. There is no significant difference in the average number of irrigated crops between the assigned treatment areas and control areas, since the p-value is 0.88 (Figure 70). There is, however, a significant difference in the average number of irrigated crops between different departments inboth Sedhiou Region and Tambacounda Region, with a p-value of 2.2e-16 (Figure 71). The highest number of crops irrigated per household was observed in Goudomp, followed by Bakel.
Average number of irrigated crops by assigned treatment and control groups
T-test, p = 0.88
ns
Number of irrigated crops Assigned control Assigned treat ent
ns: p > 0.05, *: p ≤ 0.05, **: p ≤ 0.01, ***: p ≤ 0.001, ****: p ≤ 0.0001
0 67 Adaptation and Valorization of Entrepreneurship in Irrigated Agriculture (AVENIR) Baseline Study
Average number of irrigated crops by departments Anova, p 2.2e-16
Number of irrigated crops Sedhiou Boun iling oudo p Ba el ou pentou oudiry a acounda
ns: p > 0.05, *: p ≤ 0.05, **: p ≤ 0.01, ***: p ≤ 0.001, ****: p ≤ 0.0001
1
Complicating the results shown above pertaining to the number of households that irrigate crops, the average number of irrigated crops in households is highest for the high-wealth quintile at about 1.8, followed by the middle-wealth quintile (Figure 72). In pairwise comparison, the non-significant pairs are between low- and middle-wealth quintiles, with a p-value of 0.0014. Otherwise, the average number of irrigated crops is significantly different, with a p-value of 0.0014, between different levels of wealth index quintiles.
The households in the middle-wealth quintile have a significantly higher number of irrigated crops at 1.6 on average, compared to households in the low-wealth quintile at 1.2. Also, the households in the high-wealth quintile have a significantly larger average number of irrigated crops at 1.7, compared to households in the low-wealth quintile at 1.2 (Figure 72). The result shows that wealthier households are often involved in irrigation for more than one crop, probably due to their access to and purchasing capacity for water lifting technologies to convey water to their farms.
68 Adaptation and Valorization of Entrepreneurship in Irrigated Agriculture (AVENIR) Baseline Study
Average number of irrigated crops by wealth index quintiles
Anova, p = 0.0014
ns
Number of irrigated crops o iddle igh
ns: p > 0.05, *: p ≤ 0.05, **: p ≤ 0.01, ***: p ≤ 0.001, ****: p ≤ 0.0001
2 Number of irrigated crops by wealth index quintile
5.2 Irrigation methods for various crops The commonest irrigation method is pouring water by hand using a container, practiced by 37% of households, followed by the bucket irrigation method employed by 27%; sprinklers, utilized by 8%; and irrigation canals, applied by 6% of households (Figure 73). However, gravity-fed irrigation through river diversion is among the least-used irrigation methods, practiced by just 3% of households. In general, water-saving technologies like drip and pump irrigation are uncommon. Instead, water- and labor-intensive practices such as manual pouring using containers and buckets are dominant practices. Except for rice, irrigation methods are similar in all crops. For rice, on the other hand, the channel method is the commonest approach (Figure 73). The most commonly used source of water for irrigation include traditional wells, employed by 58% of households; followed by rivers, utilized by 20%, and boreholes, favored by 7% of households (Figure 74).
69 Adaptation and Valorization of Entrepreneurship in Irrigated Agriculture (AVENIR) Baseline Study
Percentage of the most common irrigation method Percentage of irrigation methods applied by irrigating households for RICE irrigating households
rip rip
Basin dug around plant ipe
ra ity fed (ri er di ersion) Basin dug around plant
ipe Sprin ler
ther (please specify) Electric or diesel pu p
Electric or diesel pu p Buc et
Irrigation canals channel ra ity fed (ri er di ersion)
Sprin ler ouring ater y hand (using container)
Buc et ther (please specify)
ouring ater y hand (using container) Irrigation canals channel
Percent (%) Percent (%) Percentage of the irrigation methods Percentage of irrigation methods for BISSAP irrigating households For ONION irrigating households
rip rip
ipe ra ity fed (ri er di ersion)
Electric or diesel pu p Basin dug around plant
Basin dug around plant ther (please specify)
ra ity fed (ri er di ersion) Sprin ler
ther (please specify) Irrigation canals channel
Irrigation canals channel ipe
Sprin ler Electric or diesel pu p
Buc et Buc et
ouring ater y hand (using container) ouring ater y hand (using container)
Percent (%) Percent (%)
Percentage of the irrigation methods for Percentage of irrigation methods for CHILLI/PIMENTO irrigating households GUMBO/OKRA irrigating households
rip rip
ra ity fed (ri er di ersion) ra ity fed (ri er di ersion)
Basin dug around plant Basin dug around plant
ther (please specify) ipe
Irrigation canals channel Irrigation canals channel
ipe Electric or diesel pu p
Sprin ler ther (please specify)
Electric or diesel pu p Sprin ler
Buc et Buc et
ouring ater y hand (using container) ouring ater y hand (using container)
Percent (%) Percent (%)
Irrigation methods for 0) all crops combined, 1) rice, 2) bissap, 3) onions, 4) chilis, and 5) gumbo
70 Adaptation and Valorization of Entrepreneurship in Irrigated Agriculture (AVENIR) Baseline Study
Water source for crop irrigation
Strea s
iped ater
Stored rain ater
Boreholes
Ri er
raditional ells
Percentage of households
Common sources of water for irrigation
5.3 Agricultural practices The commonest agricultural practices are the use of organic fertilizers, employed by 25% of households, crop rotation by 19%, fallowing by 16%, minimum tillage by 15%, agroforestry by 12%, and intercropping by 10% (Figure 75). The average number of agricultural practices employed by a farming household is 1.5, with a minimum of 1 and a maximum of 7 agricultural practices. Assigned control areas have a higher average number of agricultural practices at 1.5, compared to assigned treatment areas at 1.4. The difference between the two groups is significant, with a p-value of 0.001 (Figure 76). Table A7 in the Annex provides more details on the disaggregation of agricultural practices by crops.
The average number of agricultural practices ranges from 1 to 2 across the sampled departments (Figure 77). The difference in the average number of agricultural practices between departments is significant, with a p-value of 2.22e-10. In the Sedhiou Region, Goudomp Department has a statistically higher average number of agricultural practices at 1.6, compared to the Bounkiling and Sedhiou Departments. In Tambacounda Region, Bakel has a statistically higher average number of agricultural practices at 1.8, in comparison to departments like Koumpentoum at 1.4, Goudiry at 1.2, and Tambacounda at 1.3 (Figure 77).
Households in the high-wealth quintile have a larger average number of agricultural practices at 1.7 than households in low- and middle-wealth quintiles (Figure 78). Pairwise comparison indicates that the difference is not significant, however (Figure 78).
These agricultural practices are grouped into four categories according to the nature of the interventions: (i) carbon- or nutrient-smart, (ii) knowledge-smart, (iii) seed- or breed-smart, and (iv) water-smart technologies. Almost 90% of households are using carbon- or nutrient-smart technologies on their farms (Figure 79). Table 10 presents a list of major agricultural technologies identified among the households in Sedhiou and Tambacounda Regions (Figure 79).
71 Adaptation and Valorization of Entrepreneurship in Irrigated Agriculture (AVENIR) Baseline Study
Agricultural practices applied in the past 12 months
Number of households allo Agroforestry rop rotation Intercropping reen anure runing ( aille) iniu u tillage ar yard anure looding irrigation ontour ploughing se of organic fertilizer se of i pro ed arieties rainage ditches channels Integrated est anage ent
Nu er of households ercent of households
Common agricultural practices
Average number of agricultural practices by assigned treatment and control groups
T-test, p = 0.001
Number of agricultural practices Assigned control Assigned treat ent
ns: p > 0.05, *: p ≤ 0.05, **: p ≤ 0.01, ***: p ≤ 0.001, ****: p ≤ 0.0001
Number of agricultural practices in treatment and control areas
72 Adaptation and Valorization of Entrepreneurship in Irrigated Agriculture (AVENIR) Baseline Study
Average number of agricultural practices by departments Anova, p 2.2e-10 ns ns
Number of agricultural practices Sedhiou Boun iling oudo p Ba el ou pentou oudiry a acounda
ns: p > 0.05, *: p ≤ 0.05, **: p ≤ 0.01, ***: p ≤ 0.001, ****: p ≤ 0.0001
Number of agricultural practices by department
Average number of agricultural practices by wealth index quintiles Anova, p = 0.068
ns ns
ns
Number of agricultural practices o iddle igh
ns: p > 0.05, *: p ≤ 0.05, **: p ≤ 0.01, ***: p ≤ 0.001, ****: p ≤ 0.0001
Number of agricultural practices by wealth quintile
73 Adaptation and Valorization of Entrepreneurship in Irrigated Agriculture (AVENIR) Baseline Study
TABLE 10 Classification of agricultural practices
CARBON OR NUTRIENT-SMART KNOWLEDGE-SMART SEED OR BREED-SMART WATER-SMART TECHNOLOGIES TECHNOLOGIES TECHNOLOGIES TECHNOLOGIES
• Agroforestry • Climate information • Use of improved crop • Drainage ditches or • Terracing systems such as crop varieties channels • Minimum tillage calendars, seasonal • Zai pits • Farmyard manure forecasts, and early • Cover cropping warning systems • Compost for application on crop • Flood irrigation • Integrated pest • Vermiculture • Stone lining management • Mulching • Drip irrigation • Pruning • Green manure • Micro-irrigation • Storage and • Intercropping conservation • No burning techniques • Fallowing • Contour ploughing • Assisted natural regeneration • Crop rotation • Use of organic fertilizer
Classification of agricultural practices
Number of households ar on nutrient no ledge Seed reed ater s art s art s art s art
Nu er of households ercent of households
Classification of agricultural practices
5.4 Agricultural labor The average household has three plots with 11 members providing farm labor over the past 2 months (Table 11). The average number of hours worked managing trees and crops in each household is 7,222 hours in a year, which would translate to approximately 20 hours worked on the farm per day by the household. 74 Adaptation and Valorization of Entrepreneurship in Irrigated Agriculture (AVENIR) Baseline Study
TABLE 11 Labor summary
AVERAGE
Total plots 2.9 Total household members 11.2 Total household hours worked annually 7,222
Goudomp Department has the largest average number of plots at 4, worked on by an average of 15 people, but also records the lowest time contribution of 6,082 hours in a year, or approximately 34 hours per person per month managing trees and crops (Table 12). On average, the households in Goudiry had 9 members working 6,694 hours in the past 12 months managing trees and crops, or approximately 62 hours per person per month. The households in the high-wealth quintile, meanwhile, have more plots but with fewer hours worked by the members (Table 13). This pattern could be attributed to the use of time- saving agricultural technologies such as mechanization.
TABLE 12 Labor summary by department
DEPARTMENTS TOTAL PLOTS TOTAL HOUSEHOLDS ANNUAL TOTAL WORKED ON MEMBERS PROVIDING LABOR HOUSEHOLD HOURS WORKED
Sedhiou 3.2 13.0 7,610 Bounkiling 2.8 12.3 8,649 Goudomp 4.0 14.5 6,082 Bakel 2.1 6.5 6,861 Koumpentoum 2.7 9.5 6,876 Goudiry 2.1 9.0 6,694 Tambacounda 2.9 12.2 7,535
TABLE 13 Labor summary by wealth quintile
WEALTH INDEX TOTAL PLOTS TOTAL HOUSEHOLD MEMBERS ANNUAL TOTAL HOUSEHOLDS QUINTILE WORKED ON HOURS WORKED
Low 2.846 11.1 7,141 Middle 3.258 12.5 8,683 High 3.333 13.3 6,495
Over 88% of households did not hire either men or women to provide additional labor on the farm (Table 14). The number of days when men were hired to work on crops and trees is higher at about 58 compared to women at 3 days (Table 15). Also, the annual average cost of hiring men to manage trees and crops is greater at 79,195 CFAF than it is for women at 15,733 CFAF.
75 Adaptation and Valorization of Entrepreneurship in Irrigated Agriculture (AVENIR) Baseline Study
TABLE 14 Hiring labor
NUMBER PERCENT OF HOUSEHOLDS PERCENT OF HOUSEHOLDS OF HOUSEHOLDS THAT HIRED LABOR NOT HIRING LABOR
Male 169 11.2% 88.8% Female 42 2.8% 97.2%
TABLE 15 Cost of labor
CATEGORY MALE FEMALE
Number hired per household 7.3 4.8 Number of days hired per household 58.4 2.5 Annual labour cost (CFA) per household 79,195 15,733
5.5 Agricultural inputs About 47% of households apply fertilizer to different crop varieties. Inorganic fertilizers are commonest type (Figure 80). Only very few households utilized both organic and inorganic fertilizers. Input supplier markets constitute the main source of fertilizers. Farmers’ organizations, input suppliers, and the government, however, are also major sources of organic fertilizers (Figure 81). The main sources of seed for various tree species, meanwhile, include relatives and the collection of seed by household members (Table 16). The main sources of seed varieties for crops are harvest and purchasing (Table 17).
Fertilizer types applied to different crop varieties
Percent (%)
Rice u o (o ra) hilli i ento nion Bissap
rganic ( anure co post or other ani al and plant products) Inorganic ( AN oliar etc) Both (organic and inorganic)
0 Fertilizer types applied to different crop varieties
76 Adaptation and Valorization of Entrepreneurship in Irrigated Agriculture (AVENIR) Baseline Study
Sources of fertilizers
Percent (%)
Both (Organic and Inorganic (MPK, CAN, Organic (manure, compost inorganic fertilizers) Foliar, etc) or other animal and plant products)
ar ers organization Off-market input suppliers o ern ent Other projects and programmes Input supplier market
1 Sources of fertilizers
TABLE 16 Sources of seed for different tree varieties
SOURCES OF SEED PERCENT (%)
Relative 43.1 Self-collected 37.5 Market 5.7 Farming groups 4.4 Government 3.6 Other 3.2 Uncertain 2.4
77 Adaptation and Valorization of Entrepreneurship in Irrigated Agriculture (AVENIR) Baseline Study
TABLE 17 Sources of seed for different crop varieties
CROP SOURCE COUNT PERCENT (%)
Rice Gift 31 4.3 Harvest 564 78.0 Loan 14 1.9 Other 24 3.3 Purchase 90 12.5 3.24 Gumbo (okra) Gift 67 6.3 Harvest 444 41.5 Loan 7 0.7 Other 29 2.7 Purchase 522 48.8 Chilis or pimentos Gift 25 4.7 Harvest 134 25.1 Loan 3 0.6 Other 8 1.5 Purchase 365 68.2 Onions Gift 6 1.6 Harvest 20 5.3 Loan 4 1.1 Other 2 0.5 Purchase 346 91.5 Bissap Gift 59 6.9 Harvest 347 40.7 Loan 2 0.2 Other 24 2.8 Purchase 420 49.3
78 Adaptation and Valorization of Entrepreneurship in Irrigated Agriculture (AVENIR) Baseline Study 6.0 Intermediate outcome 1300: Improved, sustainable, and equitable local governance and territorial management of water resources
6.1 Social groups More than 49% of households engage in one or more social groups. A majority of households, approximately 23%, participate in agricultural producer groups, followed by religious groups among about 10% of households and savings and credit groups among almost 7%. Approximately 3% of households are involved in agricultural marketing and commercialization groups, 1.5% are in water users’ groups, and 0.5% engage in irrigation water associations (IWUAs) (Table 18).
TABLE 18 Social group engagement
SOCIAL GROUP PERCENTAGE OF HOUSEHOLDS
Agricultural marketing or commercialization 3.3 Agricultural producers’ groups 23.0 Water users groups 1.5 Environment or climate management groups 0.1 Savings and credit groups 6.7 Mutual help or insurance groups 0.5 Food security and nutrition groups 0.4 Civic groups 2.6 Charitable groups 1.9 Local government 0.5 Religious groups 9.6 IWUAs 0.5 Other groups 5.8
6.1.1 Agricultural marketing and commercialization groups Bakel Department contains the highest number of households involved in agricultural marketing and commercialization groups compared to other departments (Annex Table A2). Assigned control areas have a higher number of households engaged in agricultural marketing and commercialization than households in assigned treatment areas (Annex Table A3). The households involved in agricultural marketing and commercialization are in the low-wealth quintile (Table 19). The higher the wealth quintile, the lower the number of households involved in agricultural marketing and commercialization groups.
79 Adaptation and Valorization of Entrepreneurship in Irrigated Agriculture (AVENIR) Baseline Study
TABLE 19 Social groups involving households in different wealth quintiles
SOCIAL GROUPS LOW MIDDLE HIGH
Agricultural marketing and commercialization 33 14 2 Agricultural producers’ groups 253 79 13 Water user groups 19 4 0 Environment or climate management groups 1 1 0 Savings and credit groups, including Savings and Credit Cooperative Organizations (SACCOs), merry-go-rounds, and Village Savings and 77 24 0 Loan Associations (VSLAs) Mutual help or insurance groups, including burial societies 8 0 0 Food security and nutrition groups 3 3 0 Civic groups 28 9 2 Charitable groups 24 5 0 Local government 5 1 1 Religious groups 111 24 9 IWUAs 8 0 0 Other groups 60 22 5
6.1.2 Overview of water and irrigation groups A few households―less than 2%―are involved in water user groups and IWUAs, indicating that the role of women in both household and agricultural water use management is very low. Out of the few members of the water user groups and IWUAs, the majority are active members, and very few are in leadership roles (Table 20). The households in water and irrigation groups have different levels of input in decision making (Table 21). Most households involved in water user and irrigation groups believe that these groups have strong influence within the community (Figure 82).
TABLE 20 Group position in water groups
SOCIAL GROUPS POSITION IN THE GROUP COUNT PERCENT OF OF GROUP POSITION POSITION Water users group Active group leader 9 39.1 Former group leader 1 4.4 Active member 11 47.8 Inactive member, who contributes but does not attend 2 8.7 Irrigation water use Active group leader 1 12.5 association (IWUA) Active member 7 87.5
80 Adaptation and Valorization of Entrepreneurship in Irrigated Agriculture (AVENIR) Baseline Study
TABLE 21 Input in decision making in water groups
SOCIAL GROUPS INPUT LEVEL HOUSEHOLDS AT EACH LEVEL (%)
Water users group Some input 43.5 Considerable of input 56.5 Irrigation water use association (IWUA) Some input 37.5 Considerable input 62.5
Perceptions of water group influence in the community
ater users groups Irrigation ater use association (I A)
2 Perceptions of water group influence in the community
6.1.3 External support provided to water and irrigation groups About 52% of households in water user groups and IWUAs reported that their groups received external support. The main providers of this external support are the government and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) (Figure 83). Disaggregating the sources of support for water user groups and IWUAs revealed that the majority of households that are members of water user groups received external support from the government, while the majority of households that are members of IWUAs received external support from NGOs (Figure 83). The main support that these water and irrigation groups received is emergency food assistance, water irrigation development, and agricultural programming or inputs (Figure 84).
81 Adaptation and Valorization of Entrepreneurship in Irrigated Agriculture (AVENIR) Baseline Study
External support providers for water and irrigation groups
Percent (%)
ater users group Irrigation ater use association (I A)
o ern ent N s ther
External support providers (left), disaggregated by water user groups and irrigation water use associations (right)
Main support received by water and irrigation groups
Percent (%)
ater users group Irrigation ater use association (I A)
E ergency food assistance Agriculture progra ing inputs E ergency cash assistance ater irrigation de elop ent Educational assistance school feeding ther
Major support types received by water and irrigation groups (left), disaggregated by water user groups and irrigation water use associations (right)
82 Adaptation and Valorization of Entrepreneurship in Irrigated Agriculture (AVENIR) Baseline Study
6.1.4 Water group conflicts Out of the 29 households involved in water user groups and IWUAs, only 5 households indicated that there have been disputes in their groups in the past 12 months. The main parties involved in disputes are crop producers at 83%, and livestock keepers at 17% (Figure 85). The main institutions and people relied upon to resolve conflicts in these water and irrigation groups are customary institutions, community-based organizations, religious groups, and women (Figure 86).
Parties involved in water and irrigation group conflicts
i estoc eepers
rop producers only
Percent (%)
Parties involved in water and irrigation group conflicts
Institutions and people involved in conflict resolution in water and irrigation groups
Religious institutions
Bet een o en
ater user groups B s
usto ary institutions
Percent (%)
Institutions and people involved in conflict resolution in water and irrigation groups
83 Adaptation and Valorization of Entrepreneurship in Irrigated Agriculture (AVENIR) Baseline Study
6.2 Climate shocks About 47% of households indicated that they have experienced climatic shocks in the past 10 years (Figure 87). Bakel Department has the highest number of households that indicated that they were affected by climate shocks in the past 10 (Figure 88). These results are significant with a p- value of 2.2e-16. The main climatic shocks reported are strong winds, affecting 13% of households; floods, impacting 20%; and droughts, problematic for 12%. Meanwhile, about 4% percent of the households reported that insects invaded and damaged crops (Figure 89). When it comes to responding to climate shocks, 19% of households did not take any action. About 14% reported selling livestock, and 10% relied on the use of savings. Others borrowed from relatives (Figure 90). A majority of households indicated that the shocks they experienced in the past decade had an impact such as the loss of income and assets (Figures 91).
Households impacted by climate shocks in the last 10 years
es
No
Percent (%)
Households impacted by climate shocks in the last 10 years in different departments
Percent (%)
Sedhiou Boun iling oudo p Ba el ou pentou oudiry a acounda
es No
Households impacted by climate shocks in different departments 84 Adaptation and Valorization of Entrepreneurship in Irrigated Agriculture (AVENIR) Baseline Study
Types of climate shocks reported in the last 10 years
Number of households rought lood oo uch andslide Insects Strong rain and udslides in aded and inds da aged crops
Nu er of households ercent of households
Overall response to shocks
plus others igrated to rural area ept children ho e fro school head igrated to other rural area Borro ed fro an articipated in food for or Borro ed fro pri ate oney lenders Recei ed food aid igrated to ur an area In ested in irrigation Sold assets Ate different foods Sold crops Sought off-farm employment ther specify Ate less Bought food Borro ed fro relati es or friends sed sa ings Sold li estoc id nothing
Percent (%)
0
85 Adaptation and Valorization of Entrepreneurship in Irrigated Agriculture (AVENIR) Baseline Study
Household reporting effect Household reporting effect of shocks on income of shocks on assets
Strong inds
andslide and udslides
Insects in aded and da aged crops
oo uch rain
lood
rought
Percent (%) Percent (%)
No es
1 Percentage of households reporting losses of income and assets due to climate shocks
6.2.1 Climate information services About 30% of households received climate information in the last 5 years from 2015-2020. For a majority of households, almost 61%, climate information is received primarily by radio. In addition, about 11% received climate information by mobile phone (Figure 92).
Source of climate information
Input dealer ser ice pro ider o unity eetings Research organizations o unity ased organizations ( B s) ocal leaders Non go ern ental organizations (N s) ar ers organization o ern ent agent ther specify ther far er(s) elephone Internet Radio Percent (%)
2 Sources of climate information 86 Adaptation and Valorization of Entrepreneurship in Irrigated Agriculture (AVENIR) Baseline Study
Training in the use of climate information, meanwhile, mainly arrives by radio for 42% of households, by government officials for 16%, via telephone or the internet for 13%, and other from farmers for 12% (Figure 93).
Source of climate information
Input dealer ser ice pro ider o unity eetings Research organizations o unity ased organizations ( B s) ocal leaders Non go ern ental organizations (N s) ar ers organization o ern ent agent ther specify ther far er(s) elephone Internet Radio Percent (%)
Sources of climate information
Trainer on utilization of climate information
ther specify
ocal leaders
o unity eetings
o unity ased organizations ( B s)
Research organizations
Non go ern ental organizations (N s)
ther far er(s)
elephone Internet
o ern ent agent
Radio Percent (%)
Trainer on utilization of climate information 87 Adaptation and Valorization of Entrepreneurship in Irrigated Agriculture (AVENIR) Baseline Study
The majority of households―77%―reported that they have not received training in how to utilize this climate information. At 53%, Bakel Department contains the highest number of households that report receiving training on the use of climate information. On the other hand, Bounkiling Department encompasses the lowest number of households, just 6%, that have received training (Figure 95).
Trained of using climate information by departments
Percent (%)
Sedhiou Boun iling oudo p Ba el ou pentou oudiry a acounda
No es
Households trained in the use of climate information by department
Across the study households, ideas about climate change-related trends differ to some extent. About 40% of households reported that the amount of rainfall has been increasing. However, more than 50% of households believe that the amount of rainfall has been unpredictable or decreasing in the past 10 years (Figure 96).
Change in rainfall patterns
ther specify
Early onset
ate onset
ecreased a ounts
Erratic
Increased a ounts
Percent (%)
Changes in rainfall patterns in the past 10 years
88 Adaptation and Valorization of Entrepreneurship in Irrigated Agriculture (AVENIR) Baseline Study
Sedhiou Region has been receiving higher amounts of rainfall compared to Tambacounda Region (Figures 97 and 98). Both the Sedhiou Department and Goudomp Department recorded higher amounts of average rainfall in 2019 and 2020. In comparison to all surveyed departments, Bakel received relatively low amounts of rainfall from 2010-2020 followed by Koumpentoum Department.
TIMESERIES COMPARISON OF AVERAGE AMOUNT OF RAINFALL RECEIVED BY DEPARTMENTS
Changes in rainfall patterns in the past 10 years in terms of annual precipitation
89 Adaptation and Valorization of Entrepreneurship in Irrigated Agriculture (AVENIR) Baseline Study
ANNUAL PRECIPITATION
Change in temperature pattern
ther specify
ecreased
Increased
Percent (%)
90 Adaptation and Valorization of Entrepreneurship in Irrigated Agriculture (AVENIR) Baseline Study
Most households (88%) reported that the temperature has been increasing over this period, even though the data is not always so clear-cut (Figures 100-101).
ANNUAL TEMPERATURE
100
91 Adaptation and Valorization of Entrepreneurship in Irrigated Agriculture (AVENIR) Baseline Study
TIMESERIES COMPARISON OF AVERAGE TEMPERATURE RECEIVED BY DEPARTMENTS
101
6.2.2 Agricultural extension services About 6% of households indicated that they received agricultural extension services in the past 12 months. These services are provided by a variety of organizations. In the past 12 months, government agents provided extension services to 40% of the study households that received extension. NGOs worked with 21% of those households, farmer organizations with 16%, and research organizations with 6% (Figure 102). There exists a variety of forums to furnish extension advice, led by field days in 32% of cases, followed by group discussions, community meetings, radio or television, and in-person meetings (Figure 103). Extension advice also serves a variety of purposes among the surveyed households. The primary reason why households seek agriculture extension advice is crop management. The main extension services received include information about production technology in 56% of cases, input services 23% of the time, and irrigation 13% of the time (Figure 104.)
92 Adaptation and Valorization of Entrepreneurship in Irrigated Agriculture (AVENIR) Baseline Study
Providers of agricultural extension services
ocal leaders rocessing and ar eting enterprise Input dealer ser ice pro ider aith ased organizations ( B s) o unity ased organizations ( B s) Radio ther far er(s) o unity eetings Research organizations ar ers organization Non go ern ental organizations (N s) o ern ent agent Percent (%)
102
Sources of extension advice in the past 12 months
Se inar e onstrations ther specify roup eetings ace to face contact Radio tele ision o unity eetings roup discussions ar isit ield days Percent (%)
10
Types of extension service received
ther specify
ar eting
Irrigation
Inputs
roduction technology
Percent (%)
10 93 Adaptation and Valorization of Entrepreneurship in Irrigated Agriculture (AVENIR) Baseline Study Conclusion: Findings and recommendations for project interventions
1. Development of climate-smart agricultural options: Given the increasing frequency and intensity of climatic shocks, enhancing irrigation and the sustainable management of water resources is key to increasing agricultural productivity and reducing production risks. The decreasing costs of solar equipment could accelerate the development and diffusion of solar-powered irrigation equipment to improve the production of high-value horticultural crops, which in turn could increase the incomes, nutrition, and health of households and communities. Vegetable cultivation by women’s groups is particularly relevant because of the small plot sizes involved. The key component is to identify efficient irrigation technologies that potentially offer considerable scope for saving water, labor, and time, and which are affordable for small-scale farmers. Capacity building on methods to improve irrigation efficiencies can support the efforts of local farmers and service providers.
2. Capacity building mechanisms: Regarding small-scale farmers, particularly women, their capacity and adoption of climate-smart agricultural technologies and practices are affected by several factors, including limited access to extension services and information that would enable them to make knowledgeable investment, management, and marketing choices. Across all locations, there was very low awareness of technologies to cope with climate shocks, and only 6% of the farmers accessed agricultural extension services in the past year. Farmers are further constrained by having limited access to climatic information; just 30% reported receiving climatic information in the same period. Strengthening capacity building mechanisms can effectively offset poor extension services despite that the ratio of public extension officers to farmers is suboptimal. In addition, information communication technology infrastructure is rapidly growing in the project sites; half the farmers have access to mobile phones. Radio is already a source of climate information. In collaboration with national partners and service providers, the integration of multiple capacity-building mechanisms can enable access to a broad range information for smallholder farmers—for instance, about agronomy, climate services, markets, access to financial services, and insurance services. Promising mechanisms include model demonstration farms, the radio, and mobile phones.
3. Multi-stakeholder platforms: The results of this baseline study reveal that multi-stakeholder platforms provide a framework for sharing knowledge about climate-smart agricultural technologies and furnish opportunities to promote the sustainable management of water and land resources. These platforms can also foster local ownership, the sustainability of proposed project interventions, and scaling of innovations among the actors who are members of the platform. Our baseline study showed that few actors are currently engaging with farmers, and these are mainly producer groups, religious organizations, and savings and credit groups. Farmers’ capacities, however, could be improved by a diverse stakeholder group, including service providers, extension agents, and researchers, and this possibility can easily be realized through multi-stakeholder platforms. For example, less than 3.3% of farmers engage with marketing, commercialization, or water and irrigation groups, and their rates of engagement can be heightened through linkages with the private sector. In summary, the multi- stakeholder platform model offer the potential to organize stakeholders to address the objectives of socioeconomic empowerment, increased resilience, and sustainable management of water resources among beneficiaries. Innovation platforms with a strong voice can demand necessary services from providers and can negotiate and advocate on behalf of the collective interests of farmers with the private sector and the government. Matching grants can support the entry of needed service providers into local communities. 94 Adaptation and Valorization of Entrepreneurship in Irrigated Agriculture (AVENIR) Baseline Study
4. Smallholder agricultural diversification: Our results reveal that women dominate decision making about crop production, processing, and income. However, crops currently make relatively small contributions to household incomes, which can be attributed to low volumes of production and limited value addition. Improving the productivity and profitability of crops therefore has potential to boost the socioeconomic empowerment of women. Targeting the integration of rice, horticulture, and agroforestry systems will support enterprise diversification for beneficiaries and increase their climate resilience. In addition, processing tree products, which currently is undertaken by less than 1% of households, offers an opportunity for income diversification for women and young people. Tree products have higher revenue generation and lower labor demand within target communities. Tree species will help act as windbreaks, and in modifying the micro-climate of the area, they enhance climate adaptation. Trees are also adapted to climate shocks such as high temperature and floods.
5. Gender dynamics: Women are more likely to belong to a social group compared to male household members. Social groups can foster community participation and social cohesion for the uptake of agricultural technologies and interventions promoted by the AVENIR project. Additionally, the inclusion of women and young people in social groups supports the representation of their issues. The success of these social groups will require building the capacity of smallholder farmers to conduct agriculture as a business. Water use groups and marketing groups can disseminate information and facilitate services to improve smallholder irrigation and increase the commercialization of crops. The participation of women in leadership positions is limited, indicating the need for more capacity building and leadership training initiatives to amplify their voices at the household and community levels. The AVENIR project has a salutary footprint in reaching and benefitting women and young people in the target areas for participation and trainings because they already play a central role in agriculture and nutrition. Customized training packages for relevant stakeholders are required to promote gender-responsive and efficient water and agriculture management techniques.
6. Land health and land use rights: Limited access to land, land tenure insecurity, soil degradation, and poor soil health are among the root causes of low agricultural productivity in the regions under study, and these factors also constrain the agricultural employment of women and youths. Among 54% of the surveyed households, land use rights are held by men. Women hold 46% of rights to land use, and young people hold 26%. Options to augment land access for women and young people can be explored with diverse stakeholders, such as by negotiating with local governments for their rights to use community land and by renting idle land. In addition, dry season cultivation can promote sustainable intensification of selected climate change-adapted crops. Furthermore, integrated soil fertility management, a set of practices including the use of fertilizer and organic inputs, combined with the knowledge of how to adapt these practices to local conditions, can maximize agronomic use efficiency of the applied nutrients and improve crop productivity.
7. Facilitation of climate- and gender-sensitive value chains: The main climatic shocks reported by the survey households are strong winds, which affected 13% of households; floods, which impacted 20%; and droughts, experienced by 12%. At the local level, utilizing climate-adapted crops that can better tolerate changing weather and environmental variables will help farmers reduce climate change-related risks to production; drought- and flood-tolerant and short-cycle crop varieties are good options. A gender-sensitive value chain analysis can identify opportunities to optimize the benefits that women and young people gain from their involvement in growing certain crops. Additional useful strategies include establishing gender-responsive, decentralized distribution systems for seed and agricultural inputs that are specific to the needs of women and young people in Tambacounda and Sedhiou Regions.
95 Adaptation and Valorization of Entrepreneurship in Irrigated Agriculture (AVENIR) Baseline Study
8. Promotion of value chain development: Agricultural value chains remain vulnerable because of their high exposure to climate change and variability, and they remain largely underdeveloped. A multifaceted approach might involve, for example, providing farmers with business skills training, reinforcing the many benefits of agricultural produce, adding value, commercialization, and expanding the rural non- farm economy. Increasing income diversification requires the provision of financial services to allow farmers to borrow start-up capital.
9. Enhancing the capacity of local institutions: Access to basic agricultural services is limited, and household members often must travel long distances. Farmers reported average distances of 34.5 kilometers to reach a public extension agent, and there are very few output markets for tree products in the AVENIR project areas. A multi-pronged approach can identify and link households to appropriate agricultural and irrigation input service providers, and can enhance the capacity of partner institutions, including local communities, decision makers, and the private sector, to provide sustainable production intensification technologies and techniques.
96 Adaptation and Valorization of Entrepreneurship in Irrigated Agriculture (AVENIR) Baseline Study References
1. Randall S, Coast E, Antoine P, et al. UN Census “Households” and Local Interpretations in Africa Since Independence. SAGE Open. April 2015. doi:10.1177/2158244015589353.
2. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). 2013. OECD Guidelines for Micro Statistics on Household Wealth, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264194878-en.
3. National Agency of Statistics and Demography (Senegal). Senegal Population and Housing Census 2013, https://senegal.opendataforafrica.org/gkdvujc/senegal-census-data.
4. Leroy JL, Ruel M, Frongillo EA, Harris J, and Ballard TJ. 2015. Measuring the Food Access Dimension of Food Security. Food and Nutrition Bulletin 36; 2:167 – 195.
5. Government of Rwanda and World Food Programme (WFP). 2015. The Rwanda Comprehensive Food Security Vulnerability Analysis and Nutrition Survey Report. Kigali: Government of Rwanda and Rome: World Food Programme.
6. World Food Programme (WFP). 2008. Comprehensive Food Security & Vulnerability Analysis Guidelines. Technical Assistance Project/Academy for Educational Development. Rome: World Food Programme.
7. Cochran, William G. 1977. Sampling Techniques. 3rd ed. New York: John Wiley
8. GBIF.org (16 December 2020) GBIF Occurrence. Download https://doi.org/10.15468/dl.vv4pwc
97 Adaptation and Valorization of Entrepreneurship in Irrigated Agriculture (AVENIR) Baseline Study Annex: STUDY SITE MAPS
FIGURE A1 Livelihood zones
FIGURE A2 Access to irrigation water 98 Adaptation and Valorization of Entrepreneurship in Irrigated Agriculture (AVENIR) Baseline Study
FIGURE A3 Travel time to markets
FIGURE A4 Transport infrastructure
99 Adaptation and Valorization of Entrepreneurship in Irrigated Agriculture (AVENIR) Baseline Study
FIGURE A5 Livestock density
FIGURE A6 Population
100 Adaptation and Valorization of Entrepreneurship in Irrigated Agriculture (AVENIR) Baseline Study
FIGURE A7 Soil texture
FIGURE A8 Soil pH
101 Adaptation and Valorization of Entrepreneurship in Irrigated Agriculture (AVENIR) Baseline Study
FIGURE A9 Soil salinity
FIGURE A10 Soil fertility
102 Adaptation and Valorization of Entrepreneurship in Irrigated Agriculture (AVENIR) Baseline Study
FIGURE A11 Access to health centers
103 Adaptation and Valorization of Entrepreneurship in Irrigated Agriculture (AVENIR) Baseline Study
FIGURE A12 Crop distribution in Senegal (presence data from Global Biodiversity Information Facility) (GBIF, 2020)
104 Adaptation and Valorization of Entrepreneurship in Irrigated Agriculture (AVENIR) Baseline Study
FIGURE A13 Crop distribution in Senegal (presence data from Global Biodiversity Information Facility) (GBIF, 2020)
105 Adaptation and Valorization of Entrepreneurship in Irrigated Agriculture (AVENIR) Baseline Study Annex: Supplemental tables
TABLE A1 Number of households reporting different climatic shocks in the various departments
TYPE OF CLIMATIC SHOCK SEDHIOU BOUNKILING GOUDOMP BAKEL KOUMPENTOUM GOUDIRY TAMBACOUNDA Droughts 75 1 20 48 5 21 10 Floods 56 9 22 78 50 52 26 Excessive rainfall 51 38 30 29 14 14 9 Landslide and mudslides 1 0 2 3 0 0 0 Insect invasion, resulting in crop damage 27 2 12 14 4 3 2 Strong winds 46 10 39 53 21 16 17
TABLE A2 Number of households in various social groups in different departments
SOCIAL GROUP SEDHIOU BOUNKILING GOUDOMP BAKEL KOUMPENTOUM GOUDIRY Agricultural marketing and commercialization, including livestock 1 4 7 21 8 3 and fisheries Agricultural producers’ groups, including livestock and fisheries 114 14 44 57 32 41 Water users groups 1 0 4 14 4 0 Environment or climate management groups 0 0 0 0 1 0 Savings and credit groups, including SACCOs, merry-go-rounds, and 19 2 4 3 27 1 VSLAs Mutual help or insurance groups, including burial societies 0 3 2 1 0 0 Food security and nutrition groups 0 0 2 2 2 0 Civic groups for community improvements 11 1 14 0 0 0 Charitable group for helping others 19 1 7 1 0 0 Local government 2 3 0 1 1 0 Religious group 83 8 30 5 14 0 IWUAs 0 0 0 4 1 0 Other groups 28 15 8 6 5 6
106 Adaptation and Valorization of Entrepreneurship in Irrigated Agriculture (AVENIR) Baseline Study
TABLE A3 Number of households in various social groups in treatment and control areas
SOCIAL GROUPS ASSIGNED ASSIGNED CONTROL TREATMENT
Agricultural marketing and commercialization, including livestock and fisheries 30 19 Agricultural producers’ groups including livestock and fisheries 203 142 Water users groups 19 4 Environment or climate management groups 1 1 Savings and credit groups, including SACCOs, merry-go-rounds, and VSLAs 49 52 Mutual help or insurance groups, including burial societies 1 7 Food security and nutrition groups 4 2 Civic groups for community improvements 11 28 Charitable groups for helping others 20 9 Local government 4 3 Religious groups 102 42 IWUAs 5 3 Other groups 39 48
TABLE A4 Irrigation methods by department
IRRIGATION IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT IRRIGATION METHODS METHODS (COUNT) METHODS (%) Sedhiou Pouring water by hand using a container 411 36.6 Bucket 399 35.5 Irrigation canals or channels 98 8.7 Gravity-fed irrigation through river diversion 91 8.1 Other methods 72 6.4 Sprinkler 43 3.8 Electric or diesel pump 6 0.5 Drip 3 0.3 Basin dug around plant 1 0.1 Bounkiling Pouring water by hand using a container 83 52.5 Bucket 42 26.6 Sprinkler 17 10.8 Irrigation canals or channels 7 4.4 Basin dug around plant 4 2.5 Electric or diesel pump 3 1.9 Other methods 2 1.3
107 Adaptation and Valorization of Entrepreneurship in Irrigated Agriculture (AVENIR) Baseline Study
IRRIGATION IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT IRRIGATION METHODS METHODS (COUNT) METHODS (%) Goudomp Pouring water by hand using a container 359 56.2 Bucket 173 27.1 Irrigation canals or channels 42 6.6 Sprinkler 35 5.5 Gravity-fed irrigation through river diversion 16 2.5 Basin dug around plant 9 1.4 Other methods 5 0.8 Bakel Electric or diesel pump 191 25.4 Pouring water by hand using a container 127 16.9 Pipe 125 16.6 Bucket 109 14.5 Irrigation canals or channels 80 10.6 Sprinkler 56 7.4 Basin dug around plant 32 4.3 Other methods 26 3.5 Drip 4 0.5 Gravity-fed irrigation through river diversion 3 0.4 Koumpentoum Pouring water by hand using a container 55 63.2 Bucket 17 19.5 Sprinkler 11 12.6 Other methods 4 4.6 Goudiry Bucket 80 34.0 Pouring water by hand using a container 72 30.6 Sprinkler 31 13.2 Other methods 31 13.2 Pipe 9 3.8 Irrigation canals or channels 9 3.8 Gravity-fed irrigation through river diversion 2 0.9 Basin dug around plant 1 0.4 Tambacounda Pouring water by hand using a container 134 41.1 Sprinkler 75 23.0 Bucket 43 13.2 Basin dug around plant 33 10.1 Other methods 25 7.7 Pipe 11 3.4 Electric or diesel pump 3 0.9 Gravity-fed irrigation through river diversion 2 0.6
108 Adaptation and Valorization of Entrepreneurship in Irrigated Agriculture (AVENIR) Baseline Study
TABLE A5 Irrigation methods in the assigned treatment and control groups
ASSIGNED GROUPS IRRIGATION METHODS IRRIGATION IRRIGATION METHODS (COUNT) METHODS (%)
Control Pouring water by hand using a container 593 30.19 Bucket 525 26.73 Electric or diesel pump 197 10.03 Irrigation canals or channels 178 9.06 Pipe 125 6.36 Sprinkler 110 5.6 Other methods 102 5.19 Gravity-fed irrigation through river diversion 94 4.79 Basin dug around plant 33 1.68 Drip 7 0.36 Treatment Pouring water by hand using a container 648 47.72 Bucket 338 24.89 Sprinkler 158 11.63 Other methods 63 4.64 Irrigation canals or channels 58 4.27 Basin dug around plant 47 3.46 Gravity-fed irrigation through river diversion 20 1.47 Pipe 20 1.47 Electric or diesel pump 6 0.44
TABLE A6 Top agricultural practices by department
DEPARTMENT AGRICULTURAL PRACTICES NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS
Sedhiou Minimum tillage 90 Agroforestry 89 Use of organic fertilizer 87 Crop rotation 69 Fallow 57 Green manure 47 Pruning 38 Flooding irrigation 28 Contour ploughing 27 Farmyard manure 23 Intercropping 17 Use of improved varieties 15
109 Adaptation and Valorization of Entrepreneurship in Irrigated Agriculture (AVENIR) Baseline Study
DEPARTMENT AGRICULTURAL PRACTICES NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS
Bounkiling Crop rotation 90 Use of organic fertilizer 25 Fallow 23 Agroforestry 13 Use of improved varieties 12 Minimum tillage 11 Goudomp Intercropping 53 Use of organic fertilizer 43 Fallow 39 Minimum tillage 32 Flooding irrigation 27 Agroforestry 24 Use of improved varieties 11 Farmyard manure 11 Crop rotation 10 Bakel Use of improved varieties 61 Use of organic fertilizer 53 Farmyard manure 48 Flooding irrigation 28 Minimum tillage 25 Drainage ditches or channels 23 Integrated pest management 22 Fallow 20 Agroforestry 10 Koumpentoum Use of organic fertilizer 114 Crop rotation 54 Intercropping 44 Fallow 39 Green manure 29 Minimum tillage 21 Agroforestry 13 Goudiry Crop rotation 42 Minimum tillage 33 Fallow 32 Intercropping 26 Flooding irrigation 24 Farmyard manure 15 Use of organic fertilizer 10
110 Adaptation and Valorization of Entrepreneurship in Irrigated Agriculture (AVENIR) Baseline Study
DEPARTMENT AGRICULTURAL PRACTICES NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS
Tambacounda Use of organic fertilizer 45 Farmyard manure 39 Fallow 36 Agroforestry 30 Crop rotation 14 Minimum tillage 11
TABLE A7 Summary of agricultural practices and corresponding crop varieties
AGRICULTURAL CROPS COUNT (#) PERCENT (%) PRACTICES
Use of organic fertilizer Bissap 148 20.85 Chilis or pimentos 135 19.01 Gumbo (okra) 238 33.52 None 3 0.42 Onions 107 15.07 Rice 79 11.13 Crop rotation Bissap 112 30.43 Chilis or pimentos 76 20.65 Gumbo (okra) 132 35.87 None 6 1.63 Onions 32 8.7 Rice 10 2.72 Fallow Bissap 72 26.28 Chilis or pimentos 44 16.06 Gumbo (okra) 82 29.93 None 2 0.73 Onions 32 11.68 Rice 42 15.33 Minimum tillage Bissap 80 20.51 Chilis or pimentos 53 13.59 Gumbo (okra) 118 30.26 None 2 0.51 Onions 37 9.49 Rice 100 25.64
111 Adaptation and Valorization of Entrepreneurship in Irrigated Agriculture (AVENIR) Baseline Study
AGRICULTURAL CROPS COUNT (#) PERCENT (%) PRACTICES
Agroforestry Bissap 21 12.96 Chilis or pimentos 22 13.58 Gumbo (okra) 24 14.81 None 5 3.09 Onions 17 10.49 Rice 73 45.06 Integrated pest Bissap 6 9.38 management Chilis or pimentos 20 31.25 Gumbo (okra) 12 18.75 Onions 16 25 Bissap 1 2.27 Rice 10 15.62 Intercropping Bissap 115 35.49 Chilis or pimentos 45 13.89 Gumbo (okra) 97 29.94 Onions 31 9.57 Rice 36 11.11 Farmyard manure Bissap 40 16.06 Chilis or pimentos 55 22.09 Gumbo (okra) 85 34.14 None 3 1.2 Onions 51 20.48 Rice 15 6.02 Flooding irrigation Bissap 13 10.66 Chilis or pimentos 5 4.1 Gumbo (okra) 20 16.39 Onions 10 8.2 Rice 74 60.66 Use of improved Bissap 13 7.6 varieties Chilis or pimentos 58 33.92 Gumbo (okra) 33 19.3 Onions 54 31.58 Rice 13 7.6 Green manure Bissap 28 19.31 Chilis or pimentos 23 15.86 Gumbo (okra) 35 24.14 None 3 2.07 Onions 12 8.28 Rice 44 30.34
112 Adaptation and Valorization of Entrepreneurship in Irrigated Agriculture (AVENIR) Baseline Study
AGRICULTURAL CROPS COUNT (#) PERCENT (%) PRACTICES
Contour ploughing Bissap 20 26.32 Chilis or pimentos 6 7.89 Gumbo (okra) 19 25 Onions 7 9.21 Rice 24 31.58 Drainage ditches or Bissap 1 2.27 channels Chilis or pimentos 17 38.64 Gumbo (okra) 6 13.64 None 2 4.55 Onions 16 36.36 Rice 2 4.55
113